Pullman vs Lewis

With America's newfound interest in Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials series (better known as The Golden Compass which is the first in the series) many people find his work to be the dark anti-Christ of C.S. Lewis's the Chronicles of Narnia. Many people's first reaction when they read these books or hear about the controversy is that Pullman despises Lewis, but I think this is far from the truth. It is true that Pullman is an avowed atheist and wishes to undermine Christian belief. I however contend that Pullman respects C.S. Lewis perhaps even envies the man.

C.S. Lewis had been an atheist from the time that he was fifteen years old. It was a sixteen year journey (from 15 to 31) of skepticism and resistance that finally led C.S. Lewis to fully become a Christian. When many think of C.S. Lewis they envision the playfully beautiful land of Narnia, but this is far from the epitome of Lewis's work. The Chronicles of Narnia are a compilation of mere children's stories that summarize Lewis's belief in Christianity and the lessons it holds. All of his other works are adult material, many are philosophical in nature that are the result of years of questioning religion. Some of his works (i.e. Mere Christianity and Miracles) entire purpose was to argue the philosophy and science of Christianity and why it must be true. In Miracles for instance Lewis argues the compatibility of miracles and “the natural mode of human thought” with the natural state of the universe without divine intervention. Lewis's religious works were not mere propaganda as many argue the Narnia series was, rather they were full of arguments in philosophy and scientific conjecture (which is as close as one can get to proof in the debate of religion.) Even Lewis's fictional tales such as the Screwtape Letters, a series of letters between agents of hell, is full of cultural parallels and philosophical argument for Christianity.

The young Lewis described himself “as being paradoxically very angry with God for not existing”. Though he desired a divine force to exist he struggled against reason and logic until he could find a logic that not only permitted religion but supported it. As it stands Pullman is an atheist who seeks to critique the works of C.S. Lewis. It is my belief that Pullman is envious of Lewis for having found god, something that Pullman is unable to accept. Whether or not this is true I must argue that it is not a great achievement having struck such a blow to C.S. Lewis's work. The Chronicles of Narnia was a series of mere children's stories whose purpose was to sum up Christian values to make them accessible to children. Pullman's series, though proclaimed as children's stories as well, should not even be classified as such for they are filled with adult themes and subtle but constant and pervasive attacks on good Christian morals. This is truly a low blow to C.S. Lewis but a powerful one considering the popularity of the Narnia series. But if the Chronicles of Narnia are propaganda as Pullman and other atheists claim then The Golden Compass and Pullman's entire series are one in the same. The real battle is to be fought over philosophy. If Pullman is willing to argue philosophy and science and attempt fictional works outside the realm of children then he might have a point. But I believe until that time, though Pullman's works are delightful fantasy for young adults, they hold no merit in debunking Christianity because they fail to contend the proof that Lewis provides in his other works (instead he picks a fight with a fable.)

I would like to note that I am neither Christian or atheist; I am currently agnostic and still in search of life's answers. I merely observe what I see. I do not wish to show Pullman's works in an unfavorable light either; I thoroughly enjoy his books as works of fiction. My singular point is that Pullman's His Dark Materials series cannot viably argue against Christianity, for it does not seek comparison to a work that itself seeks to prove Christianity (only to share its Christian values.)

Endangered Animals: Save 'Em or Shave 'Em

-Another "Modest Proposal"

It is becoming increasingly evident that the misunderstood blight upon this land is one that is deep rooted and ever pervasive. The cost of commercial and industrial growth is too high, there is little land for expansion, and valuable resources are being wasted frivolously. It appears that if an immediate solution is not sought that our very civilization will become overrun and succumb to ruin and poverty. The problem of which I speak appears trivial upon a first assessment but as it is examined in more detail it becomes apparent that the issue of endangered animals is a most significant one. It is obvious to any deserving citizen of this nation that the United States is currently preoccupied with matters of the utmost importance such as the waging of wars against other great nations. But there is a need to focus on the problems at home as well, to wage the war against these pesky vermin that plague our homeland. Furthermore, should we employ these creatures to our advantage this problem could be transformed into a profit. The vast economic potential of endangered animals has not yet been explored and would even allow for a smooth transition into the farming of the non-endangered creatures of this land. The introduction of these new markets would supplement the economy's growth serving both the deserving citizens of this country as well as its government whose taxes upon the animal markets would be put to further prudent uses. Once we gain control of the endangered animal problem we will prosper as we once did when there were no restrictions or government regulations and the Buffalo were hunted freely. In that time the US became the economic and industrial superpower it is now and still can be if we do not falter and allow civilization to succumb to environmentalists and wildlife.

The first issue of concern is the abuse of funds through wildlife preserves and other such animal sanctuaries. The US spends millions each year maintaining preserves and enforcing park regulations. What good does it do to protect wildlife when mankind is the one in need of protection? Not only does the government invest money in protecting these animals but they commit such atrocities as ravaging the insecticide-enhanced crops produced by mass agriculture and then dying, leaving their dead bodies to taint the fields. The ones that don't inhibit the economy through their ignorant attempts at survival throw themselves in front of our cars and litter our cities with their unadaptable corpses. It is unbearable to think how much money we lose fighting forest fires each year when we should simply let them burn along with the unprolific animals they harbor. Should we stand by while our money is poured into preserving trees and wildlife? Quite the contrary, perhaps helping the process along and starting a few fires of our own would be a healthy start to eliminating this problem as well as an effective means of preventing its return. Not only are there parks and reserves but a tremendous investment is wasted on facilities dedicated to repopulating numerous endangered species as well. How many more millions must be spent attempting to mate the same two pandas? Animals were placed on this earth for one sole purpose – to serve and to feed mankind. If they are not to be eaten then there cannot be any meaningful purpose behind their preservation unless it is to preserve enough of the population to continue the farming of the respective animal.

A second major issue in relation to endangered animals is that of land. The lack of space for commercial and industrial growth is crippling an already weakened economy. We need a place to put our malls and our Super Wal-Marts. There are still many remote rural towns that have only achieved the modest construction of two or three Starbucks when the potential for commercialization is limitless. Not only do we need space for economic expansion but space for population growth as well. The world population is growing at an ever increasing rate and we need a place to put the homeless overflowing our gutters. The issues of poverty and the homeless is a persistent one in itself and one that any amount of time is unlikely to yield any solution to. Considering that the poor are not any more exceptional than the animals and whose problem and solution could be categorized as such, it would be a great social achievement and gift to lesser humanity to eliminate these animals and make more space not only for commercial ventures but for the homeless as well. Darwin was correct in his theory of natural selection, and if I am not mistaken, I believe he has written a few volumes on the uses of finches in exotic cuisine.

There are many among us who are determined to perpetuate the problem of this animal contagion of the once great nation of America. These “environmentalists” seek to spread the beliefs that these animals are necessary and useful and deserve respect and homes as if they were people. The reality is that many of these individuals spread these lies to achieve their own political agendas and the rest are merely misguided followers. One of the primary arguments for protecting endangered animals is that protecting the environment and all its wildlife is imperative for the survival of the human race. Many believe that disrupting the environment and its natural equilibrium would cause catastrophe. In reality numerous species have become extinct throughout the history of the world and others merely take their place. The dinosaurs for instance became extinct by means of a great natural disaster that many believe to have been a giant meteor. It is arguable that the human race is the equivalent of that meteor and would be merely preserving itself by eliminating the threat of the wildlife that is encroaching upon our cities and inhibiting our opportunity for prosperity. The argument that the animals deserve homes and deserve life is one that simply defies logic. Animals are unintelligent creatures that lack self awareness and that are void any kind of soul or conscience. The very nature of their existence defies the logic that we try to apply by preserving them and not consuming them and their environment as they would do to us. These animals unwittingly do all that they can to survive and assume superiority over others. How is it then that one can argue against us doing the same? In reality what I propose is greater than that which these beasts do. I propose that we not only assume our rightful place as the dominant species but that we replace and consume all other species whose vile and uncivilized nature taints our own.

There are a few simple steps that can be taken to not only eliminate the endangered animal problem but also to turn a profit. First, it will be necessary to eliminate any and all “animal-safe zones” namely national parks as they make up the greatest area of animal havens. This will greatly increase the amount of profitable land for industrial and commercial expansion. This would also eliminate the costs of maintaining such facilities. So the question now is: “What to do with the excess animals?” The answer is a profitable one: panda hats, frog eye patches, and whale testicle moisturizer will bring in large amounts of capital due to their rarity and value. We would displace wildlife preserves with slaughter houses to eliminate residual “critter pockets”. Zoos would perform numerous functions, that of jerky, jell-o, and perfume factory. As industry grows and we exhaust our finite supply of duck billed platipi and bald eagles we must find new sources to tap. This is why I propose that whaling and seal clubbing be legalized. As for those annoying critters that aren't worth their weight in gold I have other solutions – anger management animal pens. These pens would serve as a sanctuary where one could take out their frustration with a shotgun in a pen of small furry animals. Year round hunting of all animals should be instituted and without a need for permits. If we wish this problem to be handled efficiently and effectively we must turn a blind eye to unregistered guns, use of baseball bats and ice-picks on animals, and any other “animal cruelty” as some unjustly call it.
In short we need to take out the trash and bomb the wolf dens. We must seize the opportunity to take back our land and claim our lucky rabbit's foot. America must look at this not simply a fleeting luxury but as a need. By slaughtering these ignorant creatures we will attain land and capital that could be used to benefit the good of the nation. On a much more serious note I should appeal to your wisdom for this is not only a matter of economics but a matter of safety and national security. There are many wild animals running loose that are neither regulated or between two hamburger buns. Who knows when you'll be randomly mauled or molested by such an animal on a walk through the park? I feel that it is simply best to eliminate the problem as a whole for the benefit of mankind and the American people. So if you have any concern for your country, its people, and its way of life please send a letter to your local government official, protest zoos and national parks, or even begin your own campaign against animals by hunting down any animals you can.