But onto the questions:

1. Is or isn’t the “bad guy” in the movie/book called the magisterium (The Magisterium, in the “real” world, is another name for the Roman Catholic Church)?

There is no singular bad guy and, in fact, many of the characters make independent choices for their actions based on personal belief. Magisterium literally means: “office of superintendent/president/master/chief; instruction; control/governance” (it’s Latin). It refers not to the Catholic Church as a whole but to the teaching authority of the Church. Pullman uses this word to encompass the power structure seeking to destroy (or control) Dust and those who support it.

3. Did the writer of the book come out and say that he is an atheist and wrote the books in order to pry children away from God and Christianity?

I remember reading that quote in an article but I don’t quite know where that article is, why don’t you conduct a search for it? Here are two links to websites that feature his own words in response to questions about your subject.

http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=2234

http://blog.beliefnet.com/idolchatter/2007/11/exclusive-video-philip-pulman.html

Remember: if you read something about another person that is tantalizing and possibly scandalous and you wonder about its truth, find out about it for yourself by looking up the resources reporters used in their essays.

4. Was it said that the anti-christian themes were down played in the movie so as to make the parents, who go to see the movie with their kids, think that it is a good story and then buy the kids the trilogy?

I never heard or read this sentiment, but I do know that the Church related themes were minimized and replaced with the more general term “Magisterium.” In the movie, the Magisterium refers to, I think, any authoritarian power that tries to dominate a country, culture, or group of individuals.

With regard to whether parents would buy the books for their kids after watching the movie–I think with all the press the movie received before it opened parents would have an idea of what to expect and what to expose their children to.

5. Did one of the advertisements for the movie contain a message from a Catholic bishop saying that the movie was a good thing and then they had to take the message off the advertisements because it was a false statement?

I don’t know anything about this one–I suggest you try to find this advertisement on the web. And! While Wikipedia isn’t necessarily a codified authority, it does provide reference links… check ‘em out:

Golden Compass (Film) at Wikipedia

“in Greek religion, a supernatural power. In Homer the term is used almost interchangeably with theos for a god. The distinction there is that theos emphasizes the personality of the god, and demon his activity. Hence, the term demon was regularly applied to sudden or unexpected supernatural interventions not due to any particular deity. It became commonly the power determining a person’s fate, and a mortal could have a personal demon.”

Also useful is this bit from the Columbia Encyclopedia:

“In general, the more civilized pagan societies came to consider demons as powerful, supernatural beings who lacked the dignity of gods and who, depending on the circumstance, might be either benevolent or malevolent in their dealings with men. Some demons, like the Greek Pan, were nature spirits; others were guardians of the home or fields or watchers over travelers; still others were spirits of disease and insanity or dream spirits. Some demons were considered to be intermediaries between men and the gods. It was not until the development of late Hebraic and Christian thinking that demons came to represent the unqualified malevolence so common in European demonology of the 16th and 17th cent.”

Emphasis in that last sentence is mine.

Actually, I’m not sure that Pullman truly is an atheist. Has he ever claimed that? Others have, but Wikipedia lists him as supporter of the British Humanist Association, and I’m not sure it’s fair to lump humanists and secularists in with atheists. Sure, if you drew up a Venn diagram, I would bet there’d be significant overlap, but I tend to think of humanism as more of a philosophical perspective whereas atheism is a religious perspective–or rather, an anti-religious one. Subtle distinction, and many might not agree, but there you go.

The two main characters, Lyra and Will, happen upon the Authority, a being who falsely claims he created the universes and all in it. He is encased in a protective chamber because he is composed of Dust and is so old and frail that the wind will disperse him if he enters the solid world. Will and Lyra, seeing an unknown frail being, try to “free” him from his chamber and end up scattering him to the winds, to merge with the Dust in the worlds. They had no idea this was the Authority and only wanted to help him.

As much as this trilogy is based on Christian iconography and mythology, I think it ultimately moves beyond this into fantastical “what ifs” and Pullman’s own created mythology (much like the Lord of the Rings chronologies). The Authority could easily be considered a usurper of a True God (in keeping with Christian beliefs) in these alternate universes if one chose to read the books this way. It is true that Pullman relies heavily on Christian imagery and heirarchy and there are “angels” based on Biblical interpretations, but I think this book involves so many more mythologies (traveling to Charon, True Love) and creatures (daemons and the mulefa) that it can’t be read as simply a story meant to bash of Christianity. To do so would be to miss the point of a story that combines many Western myths into a single narrative about True Love and courage.

The movie, I think, does a very good job of replacing more Christian specific terms with general ones and it can as easily be interpreted a criticism of the ideals of Progress as a criticism of Christianity.

I enjoyed the book and would recommend it.