Pullman and Pols
Al Mohler, on his blog and also his radio program, has a commendably astute take on the new movie The Golden Compass and the series of books that inspired it. He argues that a boycott of the film and censoring of the books, which many Christian groups have called for, is essentially the dumbest thing we could do. It would inflame publicity for the book and film, drive up sales, caricature us in exactly the same way the books do and most importantly, be an oblique admission that our worldview can’t hold up in the marketplace of ideas. Christianity and the truth of the Gospel have absolutely nothing to fear from the book or the movie and their agenda, disturbing as it is. The kinds of things proffered by them (which Mohler’s article goes into more depth than I’m going to address here) are exactly the same man-is-basically-good and self-actualization-is-the-highest-goal pap that have been circulating since the Garden. For the record, Diane and I plan to see the movie and possibly read the books, and *gasp* let our children experience them, if they so desire (granted, not before they’re in their teen years).
I’ve been leaning toward Huckabee recently, provided his stand against illegal immigration remains strong. He’s less fiscally conservative than I’d like, but the way his worldview seems to inform his convictions and his platform, rather than the other way around, is very attractive. I have to admit, though, that I’m a little concerned with the electability of, well, his name. It’s not that bad, the way “Tancredo,” “Kucinich” or “Gore” are, but it’s still not quite as presidential as, say, “McCain” or “Romney” or, dare I say it, “Clinton.” There really seems to be something to this, all the more in our age of shallowness, marketing appeal and sound bites. I wrote more about it a while ago. I’ll never say that’s the way it should be, but describing something that seems to be a factor in the way people decide is useful, I think.