This RSS feed address will remain live but static from this point on.

The currently operating RSS feed for comments in this legacy system will also remain live. Discussions there will go on as long as they may last. The RSS feed for legacy system comments (feed://www.haloscan.com/members/rss.php?user=tgilblog) will continue to show all that activity as it happens. 

 

See here for background information on this controversy.

In case it's not clear enough to read on this flyer, we're meeting at the Yorktown (VA) library at 7 pm, Tuesday, December 11, and at the Tabb library at 7 pm, December 13. 

"Iowa State University professor Guillermo Gonzalez's support of the theory of intelligent design damaged his prospects for tenure long before his peers voted on the job promotion, according to e-mails from at least one professor in his department to those who decided Gonzalez's tenure request.

"The e-mails were provided to The Des Moines Register by ISU officials in response to a request for public records pertaining to the tenure case."

...

"'I think Gonzalez should know that some of the faculty in his department are not going to count his ID work as a plus for tenure,' physics and astronomy professor Bruce Harmon wrote in an e-mail dated November 2005 - a year before the department voted on the tenure case.

"'Quite the opposite," Harmon added"

There is more on this today--this time, yes, from the Discovery Institute, but with full documentation. It includes this:

"One faculty member wrote in e-mails that '[i]n view of an upcoming tenure decision, secrecy in the department may equally be interpreted as prejudging the case as 'making a statement” because '[i]f it becomes clear that there were efforts to write such a statement and that the statement was not made only to avoid the impression of a hostile environment, isn’t this strong evidence for secrecy in the department[?].' Another stated, 'I don’t think talking behind Guillermo’s back is quite ethical.'”

Here's why this matters, beyond being an injustice perpetrated on a scholar. You may recall that Gonzalez's work is not in the very contentious field of biology, but in cosmology, where the facts are much more plain and distinct. Our universe is very incredibly finely tuned for life. This is now the consensus opinion of astronomers and cosmologists. In a book called The Privileged Planet, Gonzalez and co-author Jay Richards showed that our position in the universe is not just incredibly finely tuned for life, but also for our ability to discover truths about the universe. These facts are easily quantifiable. Without controversy, they are genuine science.

Gonzalez has suggested that this implies some tinkering with the system by a Designer. Professors like Paul Davies at Arizona State University, or even more openly, Owen Gingerich at Harvard have not gotten in trouble for saying so; but Davies and Gingerich do not support the parallel idea that biology speaks of Intelligent Design. I don't think Gonzalez has done so in any professional capacity either--but he committed the unforgivable sin of giving aid and comfort to people who do. And he got whacked for it.

It demonstrates a point that ID proponents have been making for a long time: academic prejudice contributes to ID being squelched, for reasons that have little to do with its academic merits.  

Why would I ask such a question? It was in the course of a dialogue with atheistic commenters "ordinary seeker," "doctor(logic)," and Paul about relative vs. absolute morality. They have taken a position that all morality is relative, as illustrated by ordinary seeker's (os's, for short) response:*

"Tom, you are asking what I think personally about your examples (1) and (2), you are asking for my personal opinion. Why? Whether I think (1) is more moral than (2) is a product of my culture and time in history. My point is that in another culture or at another time, I would very likely think differently; I would think according to the norms of that time and place, and my morals would be shaped by such. If I were raised in the culture that considers rough child rearing practices to be good, then I would think that rough child rearing practices were good."

Os was unwilling to commit to Mother 1's actions being actually, really, more morally right than Mother 2's. This is one manifestation of relativist ethics.

The question, again, is whether all morality is relative, or whether there exists some absolute reference point for some morality. The relativist position is that there is no such reference point. Moral realists (non-relativists) need not show that every moral question can be answered in terms of an absolute. We need only show that there is an absolute reference for at least one moral question. If an absolute reference point exists for that one moral question, then an absolute reference point exists.

Thus I asked, is it true that Mother 1 is morally more right than Mother 2? Os told us he has an opinion on the matter, but he says it's conceivable that in some culture somewhere, it could, with justification, be considered morally more commendable, more right, for a mother to starve and torture her baby than to nurture and feed her baby. Not only that, but we must conclude that if os landed in that culture somehow, he could not raise any moral objection to the way mothers treat their children. He could say he disagrees, that he finds their practice distasteful, not preferred; but he most certainly could not say to the cigarette-wielding baby-burner, "Stop it! That's wrong!"--for their moral basis would be as valid as his own.

I think this strains credulity and defies the evidence. No such culture can be imagined, and I'm sure none has ever been realistically described in anthropology or literature. If, per impossibile, one stumbled into such a culture, I'm sure that visitor would find it simply true and obvious that they were treating their babies wrongly. If os stumbled in there, he would quite certainly want to say, "That's wrong! You don't torture your own babies for your own pleasure!" It seems to me that, from the dispassionate distance of a blog dialogue, os is reaching for refuge from something, from a conclusion he would have to face if he allowed that Mother 1 really and truly is acting in a more morally commendable way than Mother 2.

That conclusion is that there is a God. William Lane Craig has a series of podcasts (the "Moral Argument" sessions here ) in which he argues:

(1) If objective moral values exist, then God exists (where "objective values" means values that are valid and binding independently of whether any human person believes in them or not).
(2) Objective moral values exist.
(3) Therefore God exists.

We have not argued for or discussed Premise 1 here recently, though it seems strong enough. Without a God there is no place for such objectivity to reside. Premise 2 has been the current point under question. Is it objectively true that Mother 1 is acting more morally than Mother 2? It certainly seems to be true. To use one of Craig's illustrations, suppose Hitler had won World War II and either exterminated or brainwashed every person in the world so that no one remained alive who disagreed with him: would it then be the case that the Holocaust had been ethically right? Would his brainwashing and extermination efforts have been right? I doubt you think so.

Consider the novel 1984. It's about a culture brainwashed to love Big Brother. Do we read it and say, "yes, that's fine, they all agree on this so it's perfectly ethical"? No--we are rightly outraged at the prospect.

I used the phrase, "it seems to be true" that Mother 1 is acting more morally than Mother 2. We have within each of us a kind of moral compass that leads us to our own answers to questions like this. The person who would say Mother 2 is morally superior to Mother 1 is one we would regard as having a defective moral compass. We would consider him wrong. But being defective implies there is a proper function; being wrong implies that there is a right. Being morally better or worse implies a sense of direction, a true north for the compass to point toward.

Why would someone assert that the comparative morality of (the actions of) Mother 1 and Mother 2 "just depends"? It can't be because he thinks Mother 2's actions are morally praiseworthy in any way comparable to Mother 1's; nor can it be because he's observed any culture that would regard it that way. There must be some principle by which he comes to that incredibly counter-intuitive conclusion. I think it's because of Craig's Premise 3, the conclusion that God must exist if there are objective moral values.

Late in one of those podcast lectures someone asked Craig whether someone might reject the existence of objective moral values just because one knows that there is no God. That would be a valid logical step: "I know there is no God, therefore I can conclude there are no objective moral values." But as Craig said, then we need to ask which of these has more evidence in support of it: (A) That at least some moral values exist objectively, or (B) that God does not exist? If one wants to say, "well, gosh, I think Mother 1 is more moral, but that's only my opinion, it's a matter of our preferences, and others might disagree..." then one ought to be sure that one has plenty of proof there is no God--because that statement is one of those extraordinary claims that needs a lot of support under it.

*Since then it has become unclear how much this question matters to ordinary seeker, but the dialogue is instructive anyway. 

The discussion between Dr. Princehouse, an evolutionary biologist from Case Western Reserve University, and Dr. Behe, a noted Intelligent Design leader from Lehigh University, covered all the usual topics. From my perspective Dr. Princehouse made many of the usual errors. She dismissed ID for having supposedly come from religious origins, a clear case of the genetic fallacy; she pronounced ID a religious view, which is contrary to the facts; and more.

But this is nothing new; it's become rather ho-hum, and I've about quit blogging on these kinds of things. But the students who stood up to speak on the issue almost all said they thought it would be good to teach ID in schools. Their curiosity and interest was really quite refreshing. They're involved in the issue--they want to learn! How could anyone suppose this would ruin the future of American science?

This is by no means a scientific sampling of student opinion. (Has anyone surveyed students to find out what they think about this?) To think, though, that they're unaware of the concept and won't have questions 

There is some dispute over the dating of the wall, but it's suggestive. It would hardly be the first time archaeologists have uncovered a Biblical site, at any rate. 

Excerpts:

"Plots and characters and themes make promises. Prophecies in epic fantasy stories are blatant promises. When you are told that there is a prophecy that one and only one knife can kill Almighty God, and that one little boy is the one to do it, it breaks a promise to have God turn out to be a drooling cripple who dies by falling out of bed.

"Character development makes a promise. If you start your series with a selfish little girl who tells lies, the climax of her character arc must be when she either gets a come-uppance for being a liar, or when she reforms and starts telling the truth. If you give her a magic instrument that only she can read called an Alethiometer, a truth measurer, it breaks a promise to have simply nothing at all come of this."

"You see, the problem with the message method of storytelling is that you have to stop the story to preach the message. The STORY here required that God be an evil Tyrant, as evil  (at least) as Sauron the Great, as cunning as Fu Manchu, as mad as Emperor Nero. The story required an all-powerful Goliath to be fought and overthrown by the bravery of a boy with a knife. The MESSAGE required that the Christian God be depicted, not merely as a tyrant, but as a false and shallow and idiotic creature: the Wizard of Oz, nothing more than a puppet-head and a loud voice controlled by a scared little carnival man behind the curtain."

In case it's not clear, what the STORY required is not what Pullman gave us; he delivered the MESSAGE (the sermon) instead.

"What are the characters in this book fighting for? Not for love, I take it: no couple ends up together, not even (I kid you not) the sodomite angels Baruch and Balthamos. When the Dust settles, the demons seem to be in charge of the universe, and they order all the inter-dimensional windows to be closed, except the window allowing the ghosts in the land of the dead to choose oblivion. For freedom? There is no one in chains at the beginning of the book who is freed at the end. For truth, justice, the American way? Again, there is nothing in the books to lend any drama to any of these concepts. Lyra is a liar (hence her name) but no lies are overthrown, no truth is revealed during the plot; Asrael is the Lucifer figure who ends up sacrificing himself, if not like Christ, at least like a man throwing himself on a hand-grenade, to push Metratron into the Pit of Non-Hell, where their ghosts will fall for all eternity; perhaps the American way was supposed to be their cause, as Americans prefer Republics to Monarchies, but the only political institution the "Republic of Heaven" turns out to support is the University. Huhn? Next to the basilica, the university is the quintessential Christian institution and invention. I assume we are not talking about Trinity College or Saint Mary's. Was anyone fighting for the ugly wheeled elephants? These creatures were allegedly innocent, but seemed pointless and repugnant on every level. Where they being threatened by the Church in some way? Was the Church trying to horde the Dust in a fashion that harmed someone, somewhere? Pullman is not clear on this point, or maybe I missed it. The book does not seem to be "for" anything, merely against Christians in general and the Catholic Church in particular. 

"The problem is that the atheist message is boring and undramatic: life's a mechanical process and then you die."

Read the whole review, and keep it in mind the next time you hear Phillip Pullman say all he cares about is telling a tale. He's telling you a tale.

Hat tip to Philangelus

Related:
Series Overview

The Golden Compass and "Killing God"--Not An Urban Legend
Coming Soon To Your Child's School: Hostility Toward God and Church, Heavily Promoted
Once Again, How Can This Be Legal?
On Christianity, the Arts, and How To Have a Disagreement
Original Sin Is the Source of Truth? (The Golden Compass)
Death of Divine Authority—Pullman's Agenda
BreakPoint.org on The Golden Compass
"I'm Trying to Undermine the Basis of Christian Belief"  
"Democracy of Reading" or a Hidden Agenda? (Phillip Pullman)
Strongly Recommended: Jeffrey Overstreet on The Golden Compass
A New Bearing on The Golden Compass
Rehabilitating The Golden Compass's Religion?
Over-reacting?
Preacher-Man Phillip Pullman 

"KHARTOUM, Sudan (AP) -- Thousands of Sudanese, many armed with clubs and knives, rallied Friday in a central square and demanded the execution of a British teacher convicted of insulting Islam for allowing her students to name a teddy bear 'Muhammad.'" 

I haven't been one to call for boycotting either the movie or the books, except to point out what should be obvious: they don't belong in public school curricula. If you look, though, you can find some excessive reactions to the movie out there. Still I find it sadly amusing to hear cries of "censorship!" over parents encouraging other parents to pay attention to what their kids read or see. I find it disingenuous at best when people say there's nothing anti-religious about the movie or the books. The film doesn't come out for another week, but everybody already knows that movies function as advertisements for books (that's what Scholastic is counting on, in the link already cited); and I've read the books and they're thoroughly anti-God and anti-Church.

We don't need to get all hysterical over that, because God is still God even if Phillip Pullman thinks he's too old to get out of bed. But let's not be too coy about something as obvious as Phillip Pullman's agenda.

I have another source to provide you on that topic, but it deserves its own post.



Related:
Series Overview

The Golden Compass and "Killing God"--Not An Urban Legend
Coming Soon To Your Child's School: Hostility Toward God and Church, Heavily Promoted
Once Again, How Can This Be Legal?
On Christianity, the Arts, and How To Have a Disagreement
Original Sin Is the Source of Truth? (The Golden Compass)
Death of Divine Authority—Pullman's Agenda
BreakPoint.org on The Golden Compass
"I'm Trying to Undermine the Basis of Christian Belief"  
"Democracy of Reading" or a Hidden Agenda? (Phillip Pullman)
Strongly Recommended: Jeffrey Overstreet on The Golden Compass
A New Bearing on The Golden Compass
Rehabilitating The Golden Compass's Religion?
Over-reacting?
Phillip Pullman As Preacher  

 

Freitas acknowledges that God is killed, and that the Church is treated with great contempt. She says the God who dies is "not a true God at all." She's right there, for Pullman's "God" is a usurping, crafty, deceiving angel. He's an impostor, says Freitas, author of a book on the trilogy (the variant spelling here is approved in dictionaries), Killing the Imposter God. Who, then, is the true God? In His Dark Materials, it's Dust. Or He is Dust, or She is Dust. Freitas says Dust "has a mind of its own," but there's hardly anything personal about this Dust God, so I'm not at all sure what pronoun fits.

Pullman is a self-avowed atheist. Freitas's finding God in his stories ought to have seemed quite remarkable to him. In his interview with Freitas, it's apparent that "God" is nothing more than metaphor to him. (Cynically I wonder if he thought that by agreeing with her he might rehabilitate his reputation with religious believers. That would certainly help sales if it worked.) Now, if Freitas is correct in believing that the trilogy's message was "killing an impostor God," then where is the real one? Totally absent from the story. Freitas says it is Dust. Dust, which early on is just "a charged particle" but later is seen to be a great animator of life, is perhaps the main mysterious symbol of the fantasy. I can't explain all that there is to say about it, but for our purposes here it will be sufficient to listen to Freitas's own interpretation, and how she equates Dust with God:

"Dust is the Holy Spirit."

....

"not just a being, but a divinity that loves us and animates us."

....

"Dust's love for humans is unconditional, even though they often do things to hurt and deplete Dust's influence and presence."

....

"Wisdom, Consciousness, Spirit, 'Dark Matter.'"

....

"Dust is a 'spirit' that transcends creation, but all living beings are made of Dust, so Dust is a part of Creation. While Dust is indeed the divine fabric of the worlds of His Dark Materials, Dust is not all-powerful, all-knowing, and immutable. Dust is as dependent on creation for its sustenance as we are dependent on Dust for ours."

This is the God Freitas finds in the trilogy; and she goes on to say that it accords with Catholic feminist and liberation theology (she instructs in religion at Boston University and says she is a Catholic theologian. I can't speak knowledgeably to any specifically Catholic issues, but this vision of God is clearly at odds with historic Christianity, whether Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox. It has much more in common with Eastern-influenced, New Age versions of religion.

Freitas says she is rejecting "the more classical notion of a detached, transcendent God." This is just odd. The classical notion of God is both transcendent and immanent (close, caring); both utterly heavenly and other, and yet very personally involved. He came to earth as a man; he listens to prayers; he comforts, he guides and teaches individually. The impostor God Freitas thinks orthodox theology teaches is an impostor of her own (and other similar theologians') making. He doesn't exist in the Bible.

To equate Dust with the Holy Spirit as she has done is tragically laughable. The Holy Spirit is God's most intimate presence with humans, yet he is also fully God, and thus co-eternal with the Father and the Son, as self-existing as the other two Persons of the Trinity, and as fully involved in creating the world. God as creator is fully other, though involved; I have to insist on that because Freitas seems to think a transcendent God cannot be. The Holy Spirit therefore cannot be a part of creation, nor can he be in a mutually dependent relationship with it.

This Dust, which in the story is mutually dependent with persons, seems to be specifically dependent on the sexual activity of two children just days into puberty (a passage with a definite marker point in the story).

It has also been suggested, by Freitas and others, that the Church Pullman is attacking is not all churches, but only the domineering, authoritarian, hateful, controlling, manifestations of church. That would be a lot easier to believe if a) Pullman had not said all churches are out to bring terrible hurt to children; and b) there had been some contrasting good version of Church in the story. But in the books, all Church, indeed almost all adult authority, is corrupt and deadly. If Pullman was trying to tell us there's a better way for churches to conduct themselves, why did he leave out the better way?

Freitas wants to rehabilitate Pullman, to let us know his ideas are not so opposed to Christianity after all. To do this she sets forth an unorthodox and unbiblical version of New Age theology dressed in Christian terminology, and proudly points at Pullman for agreeing with it. If Pullman agrees with it, it's only metaphorically; and if he agrees with her, he and his books still have massive differences with historic Christianity.

Related:
Series Overview

The Golden Compass and "Killing God"--Not An Urban Legend
Coming Soon To Your Child's School: Hostility Toward God and Church, Heavily Promoted
Once Again, How Can This Be Legal?
On Christianity, the Arts, and How To Have a Disagreement
Original Sin Is the Source of Truth? (The Golden Compass)
Death of Divine Authority—Pullman's Agenda
BreakPoint.org on The Golden Compass
"I'm Trying to Undermine the Basis of Christian Belief"  
"Democracy of Reading" or a Hidden Agenda? (Phillip Pullman)
Strongly Recommended: Jeffrey Overstreet on The Golden Compass
A New Bearing on The Golden Compass
Rehabilitating The Golden Compass's Religion?
Over-reacting?
Preacher-Man Phillip Pullman  

Yet another part of an ongoing accumulation of research on positive life outcomes associated with faith. See that link for more on how to interpret studies like these. Hat tip to World on the Web. 

"Many scholars and front-line caseworkers interviewed by The Associated Press see the abusive-boyfriend syndrome as part of a broader trend that deeply worries them. They note an ever-increasing share of America's children grow up in homes without both biological parents, and say the risk of child abuse is markedly higher in the nontraditional family structures.

"'This is the dark underbelly of cohabitation,' said Brad Wilcox, a sociology professor at the University of Virginia. 'Cohabitation has become quite common, and most people think, 'What's the harm?' The harm is we're increasing a pattern of relationships that's not good for children.'"

Part of an ongoing accumulation of research on positive life outcomes associated with faith. See that link for more on how to interpret studies like these. 

Pullman's Values
Pullman has spoken in interviews of the values he was expressing through the books; here:

"consciousness, human thought, imagination, love, affection, kindness, good things, intellectual curiosity"

and here:

"Happiness, wonder, delight.... kindness, love, courage, and courtesy too; and intellectual curiosity; all these good things. And the qualities the book attacks are cold-heartedness, tyranny, closed-mindedness, cruelty."

And whenever he speaks, he says his agenda is to provide the simple enjoyment of the story.

Biblical Values
What shall we make of these values? In fact they are all Biblical, Christian values, except insofar as one wishes to express them independently of God. God invented joy, and the search for knowledge, and love, and compassion. He stands unalterably opposed to tyranny, cold-heartedness, cruelty, closed-mindedness. As far as what he has stated here, Pullman is on the right track; and these values do show up clearly in the books. The problem is that he pushes God out of the picture; and also that the Church is depicted in the most negative light possible, mostly on account of (in Pullman's eyes) hating these good things and for being tyrannical. That's where he departs from Biblical values in a major way.

Unrestricted Human Pleasure?
He left at least one of his own central values off the list he gave in that interview: freedom to experience pleasure at will. It was for sake of pleasure—a sexual fling, in fact—that one major character forsook her calling as a nun, and that led her, she said, to experience freedom and love as she had never before known it. She gave up her faith not because she decided it was wrong, but because it didn't give her the freedom she desired. The two barely pubescent major protagonists, Lyra and Will, save an entire world just by connecting (implicitly but unmistakably) in sexual love.

Human Joy
Even here, though, Pullman's value is but a distortion of a Biblical good. God invented sex, and any myth you've heard that it has anything to do with "Original Sin" has no basis in truth. I know some have said taht sex is inherently sinful, but guess what? God calls it good! There's an entire book of the Old Testament (Song of Solomon) devoted to a couple's romance, and it isn't all just batting eyelashes and sighing at each other across the dinner table.

It's good, but only within boundaries; but even the boundaries exist for good purposes, for increased fulfillment. When my wife and I were married, we united with each other not only physically, but with a lifelong trust commitment that included our hearts, souls, and minds, along with all our dreams, all our commitments, all our mutual trust. I can't speak from experience (thankfully) but I am quite certain that no experience of "just sex," or even sex with love for the moment, could compare with the unity my wife and I experience in every aspect of our persons. God's boundaries around sex are for the purpose of preserving that closeness; and also to protect us from the terrible ripping emotional pain that almost always accompanies short-term intimate relationships; the social and economic struggles of child-raising without a committed spouse, and the diseases that so often are passed around.

The God of Joy
God is not opposed to fulfillment! He is a God of joy, and he leads us to greater joys, and he himself is glorified when we pursue joy his way. I've already linked to John Piper's work on this, not long ago. C. S. Lewis said,

"Our Lord finds our desires, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased."

What then shall we make of Pullman's values? God invented joy, and the search for knowledge, and love, and compassion. It's a mystery why one would want to cut oneself off from the Source of all love, beauty, and truth, in order to pursue these things.

Who Is Responsible for The Golden Compass?
I suppose there are two possible reasons Pullman would do that. One is spiritual: pride leads some persons to prefer personal independence at whatever cost, so they try to find these good things apart from God just because they want to do it on their own. The second reason points back at Christians: we not have been telling or demonstrating the life of Christ in all its truth and beauty.

The true God, the God of infinite joy, is obviously not the one that Pullman speaks of, nor would you recognize in His Dark Materials a Church that follows such a God. Has Pullman heard of such a God, and rejected him? Or has he never heard of him? If he has rejected him, that is his choice; if he has not heard of him truly, that responsibility rests on the Church.

Our Own Creation?
I'm giving Pullman as much benefit of the doubt as possible. Perhaps it's more realistic to think, as David Downing suggested, that "For a creative writer, Pullman shows a remarkably stunted imagination in his inability (unwillingness?) to envision the worldview of faith." Still we must ask, what of his readers? His books would be nothing if nobody bought them. So in regard to his readers, the same question applies: how many have heard of the genuine, great, good God, or seen God alive in his people? Many readers find his picture of the Church at least somewhat believable, and we have to honestly admit there must be some reason for this. But if we Christ-followers were consistently presenting him in truth, we would hardly have to give Pullman a second thought. Readers would look at his fictional God and his fantasy Church, and they would laugh.

Christians, is it possible that The Golden Compass is partly our own creation? Not that we wrote it or produced the movie, but that it is partly our own failure to live out God's love and joy that has given it fertile soil to take root in?

I've been saying all along that the trilogy is inappropriate as teaching material in public schools. I still think so; and I still think Pullman's vision of reality is seriously, even dangerously, in error. But the best protest we could raise against The Golden Compass would be to cut the ground right out from under it, by demonstrating just how good, how joyful, how loving, how giving, and how free life can be in Jesus Christ. We need to be a Church that puts the lie to the false fantasy church Pullman created. We need to express the truth of Christ through our lives and through our words. If we would only do that, we would never have to worry about another Pullman.

Related:
Series Overview

The Golden Compass and "Killing God"--Not An Urban Legend
Coming Soon To Your Child's School: Hostility Toward God and Church, Heavily Promoted
Once Again, How Can This Be Legal?
On Christianity, the Arts, and How To Have a Disagreement
Original Sin Is the Source of Truth? (The Golden Compass)
Death of Divine Authority—Pullman's Agenda
BreakPoint.org on The Golden Compass
"I'm Trying to Undermine the Basis of Christian Belief"  
"Democracy of Reading" or a Hidden Agenda? (Phillip Pullman)
Strongly Recommended: Jeffrey Overstreet on The Golden Compass
A New Bearing on The Golden Compass
Rehabilitating The Golden Compass's Religion?
Over-reacting?
Preacher-Man Phillip Pullman  

I grew up in Michigan, where being a Detroit Lions fan was pretty much expected. It wasn't easy. Other than one anomalous victory in 1992, the last time they won a post-season game was when Dwight D. Eisenhower was President. But they are a Thanksgiving staple: every Thanksgiving football game since I-don't-know-when has been a home game in Detroit or Dallas. They lost today. But they've still won more than they've lost this season, which is quite remarkable, given their history.

Today the L.A. Times took advantage of the Thanksgiving football tradition to highlight what many are claiming is the reason for their improving performance: spiritual leadership, by a strong Christian at quarterback. He knows what he's thankful for, and to whom he should give thanks--even if they didn't win today.