There’s a lot of political anti-intellectualism going around. Faith-based teaching and politics are feeding the public a lot of policies and ideas that don’t stand up to rigorous questioning (this probably isn’t the place to enumerate them). The only way faith-based politics work is for enough people not to question things.

I think campaigns like the anti-Pullman one draw from this ideology, and feed into it.

The people who write these e-mails often start campaigns to have books removed from library shelves. Once the book is removed from library shelves, that is, indeed, institutional censorship: it’s contents are no longer available to anyone else who wants to read the book, or who might happen on the book and benefit from it.

Furthermore, what I think Brandon is trying to point out is that while people might not want to read a book that calls elements of their faith into question, they and their faith might benefit from reading such a book, not because they’ll come around to the author’s way of thinking, but because they may better understand people around them, who have more in common with the author than they do.

Outside of school, it’s rare for people to be forced to read a given book, and I don’t think that Brandon was suggesting that anyone be compelled to read Pullman’s books, or tricked into doing so. What he seems to be warning against is the way the e-mails and letters (and even the Facebook group) simply tell people that the Pullman’s book (and the movie) are bad, that it celebrates atheism, and that Pullman is trying to convert their children. The people writing these e-mails don’t seem interested in engaging with the ideas. They simply call on their authority, and their readers’ insecurities, to promote the notion that faith and questioning are somehow opposed to each other. They feed into the false opposition of faith and intellectualism.

I think this is a dangerous trend, myself, and one that should be questioned. I think it has to be questioned by people of faith, because, well, in the eyes of most Christians, an athiest like me doesn’t hold much authority.

If you want to see real censorship, visit N Korea or Iran or Cuba and try passing out Orwell and Ayn Rand on the street. Assuming they don’t mistake “1984″ for an instruction manual, you will be, ahem, discouraged.

Then the author says “people should make their own decisions on this.” Well, some people prefer not to see anti-Christian movies, and the email helps them make that decision. I don’t care myself, but the email is in fact helping better inform their choice, not making them ignorant.

Finally, telling people to ignore something is perfectly valid. If someone made a pro-KKK movie or one about how the Jews really deserved the Holocaust, would we have to refrain from telling people not to see it in order to prove we aren’t “anti-intellectual” or “fostering ignorance?” Do we need to “promote learning” about those viewpoints? Those are extreme examples, but some people feel that strongly about religion — and that’s their right. As long as they aren’t infringing on my rights I don’t care.

I haven’t seen the movie, but it looks fun. I’ll probably see it when it gets to DVD.

My daughter and I just got back from watching The Golden Compass. We talked more on the drive home than we have in a long time. What Pullman touches on is a great springboard for discussion.

Great blog, John! I’d like to invite you to take a look at the seven things I learned from Orson Scott Card. He’s writing a blurb on the back of my YA fantasy novel, Secret Speakers. http://golibro.com