Facing The Challenge Web Site

[blpurdom]

lou_selastic wrote:
 
> I think the article at  www.facingthechallenge.org/potter.htm 
> gives a balanced and objective analysis of Harry Potter and aims 
> to help towards a more reasoned and thought-through response to 
> the Harry Potter film and books, rather than just a knee-jerk 
> reaction by those opposed to anything that might even allude to 
> anything to do with the occult.

While something other than an uninformed knee-jerk reaction is 
desirable in an article of this nature, I found the article to be 
something like a wolf in sheep's clothing; while it's not a 
wholesale condemnation of the HP books, it's hardly an unqualified 
endorsement of them either, and the concerns raised about any kind 
of religion or value system that is based on anything other than 
conservative Protestantism are, as John pointed out, not founded in 
fact and some references to other religious traditions are patently 
offensive.

John Walton <john at w...> wrote:

> Except for the fact that it calls "anything to do with the occult"
> dangerous. I find that offensive: In answer -- No, it's not. What 
> *will* drive Christian children to curiosity about other religions 
> is the intolerant attitude shown by many Christians (this site 
> included) towards other religions, gay people, and Harry Potter.

"koinonia02" <Koinonia2 at h...> wrote:

> Why is it intolerant if a Christian believes that "anything to do 
> with the occult" is dangerous?  The Bible is quite clear on that. 

I have two problems with each of these sentences: there is no 
definition of "occult," so it is unclear whether you mean people 
actually learning witchcraft or reading their morning horoscope (I 
do not have a problem with either practice); and saying the Bible is 
clear on anything is something I and many other people who think of 
the Bible as a holy book find offensive.  If you want to believe 
everything in the Bible is cut-and-dried, that is your choice and 
your belief.  Don't state this categorically, please.  Many sects 
believe that there is always more light to be shed on this book and 
that it is extreme hubris to claim to know the mind of God 
completely.  If everyone in the world thought everything in this 
book was clear, there would not be so many sects using it as 
scripture and people around the world debating its meaning for 
centuries.

"koinonia02" <Koinonia2 at h...> wrote:

> Why is it that if one is not willing to accept certain lifestyles, 
> Harry Potter, or the occult, then they are intolerant.  However if 
> one continually gives misinformation about Christianity, calls 
> anyone and everyone a homophobe and can't understand why some 
> people just don't like Harry Potter, then why is that person 
> considered tolerant? Sounds pretty intolerant to me.

What is a lifestyle?  In my experience, that tends to be a veiled 
method of referring to sexual minorities that needs to become a 
thing of the past as it has no real meaning.  I personally dislike 
lifestyles that include oppressing people, using more natural 
resources than you need personally to survive, disregarding others' 
belief systems and customs, failing to help others less fortunate 
than you when you have more than adequate resources to do so, 
condoning or ignoring injustice, and judging people according to 
their demographics instead of who they are as individuals.  

I also wish people would understand that "tolerate" is not really a 
nice word.  To "tolerate" someone is to just barely abide their 
existence.  It may mean, for instance, not actively running around 
physically attacking someone in a group you dislike.  
But "toleration" does not have to include giving people in that 
group basic civil rights (the demand for this is often called a 
demand for "special rights," because they're "special" if they're 
being demanded by a group that is being "tolerated" and should be 
happy with being thrown that bone).  Phooey to the word "tolerate!"

"koinonia02" <Koinonia2 at h...> wrote:
 
> Many religions offer so called *guilt-free, do whatever you want, 
> you don't have to answer to anyone, just do it, you are your own 
> god* type stuff and that can be attractive to many children and 
> adults.

If this is so, I am unfamiliar with these religions (unless Madison 
Avenue has become a religion, and I'd be willing to believe that 
since many people do seem to worship the Great God of Commerce).  
Every religion with which I am familiar requires self-examination 
and confession directly to a deity, a clergy person, or a person you 
may have wronged, and true penitance is highly recommended for peace 
of mind, as well as actual reparation, in some cases.  I am not sure 
what real religions might meet your definition above, but if that is 
merely your IMPRESSION of some sects, it is a very slanted and 
uncomplimentary (to you) way of phrasing it.

> It is not intolerant to raise a child on what God has to say.   
> 
> Not every person who calls themselves a Christian *is* one.  You 
> could have a discussion on exactly what a Christian is and get 
> many different responses.  For that reason I really don't like to 
> lump anything and everything under Christianity.

Is this what you mean about misinformation about Christianity? I 
think it is putting out "misinformation about Christianity" to claim 
that there is one thing called Christianity that has a clear-cut 
definition.  Please refer to your local telephone book; look in the 
section for "Churches."  Christianity was once, pre-Reformation, 
something close to a monolithic entity (although there have always 
been splinter groups and sects that were deemed "heretical" by the 
Church even before Luther).  This is no longer the case, and it 
hasn't been for a long, long time.  

It IS intolerant to raise a child on "what God has to say."  This is 
a type of intolerance on which I pride myself, thank you very much.  
However, what I teach my children "God says" is possibly very 
different from what some other folks are teaching their children, so 
again, I would say check out that phone book.  I personally find it 
fascinating reading!  And if someone wants to call themselves a 
Christian, I feel that's their privilege.  I would never dream of 
arguing with someone about whether they're a "real" Christian.  I 
definitely believe this is in the eye of the beholder.

"koinonia02" <Koinonia2 at h...> wrote:
     
> Why should one be expected to accept what one considers to be 
> wrong? A person should be free to worship what they wish but that 
> doesn't mean they have to accept the other belief system as being 
> right. If I believe there to be only one God then why am I not 
> allowed to believe that?  If someone believes there is a goddess 
> than I respect the right of that person to believe that way but 
> I'm not going to live by what that person believes in.   

Are you using "accept" to mean "tolerate?"  There are plenty of 
belief systems to which I do not subscribe.  You do not have to 
subscribe to a religion in which you do not believe.  I recognize 
the right of people who adhere to other systems than my own to 
freely practice their faiths and to do so with no discrimination or 
impediment to being free citizens with all of the rights and 
responsibilities thereof.  I also think each of us should have the 
right to practice our religion without its being attacked 
as "wrong."  It is when someone attacks my faith that I have a 
problem.  If a tenet of your faith is that you HAVE to attack mine, 
then that becomes problematic, and that's usually when folks who go 
around attacking others' belief systems start claiming to be the 
ones who are not being "tolerated."  If there's something I proudly 
do NOT tolerate, it's intolerance.  And no, that's not a 
contradiction.

"koinonia02" <Koinonia2 at h...> wrote:
 
> I have no problem with Focus on the Family.  What is wrong with 
> someone or some group having a high set of morals and living their 
> lives based on the Bible? 

Nothing, if they're not attacking others' belief systems and trying 
to influence public policy to reflect their beliefs only, as well as 
campaigning to deprive some people of basic civil rights by calling 
them "special rights," all of which FOF does with great regularity.

> A group like this isn't going to change their beliefs for what the 
> world believes in.  Nor should they.   Just how much lower are we 
> suppose to drop our morals in order to be considered "tolerant"?  
> Where does one draw the line?  Some are going to draw the line 
> with what the Bible says and some are going to make up their own 
> rules.

Plenty of people have a stringent personal moral code which departs 
drastically from one that would be considered adequate by FOF 
standards.  It is different, but it IS a moral code.  It is not 
valid to say that others do not have a moral code simply because it 
is different from your own.  I personally hope morals don't drop any 
lower because then we'd probably have more sweatshops, more civil 
rights abuses and and more economic injustice, but then I have a 
different definition of "low morals" than some people do.

I personally loved some posts that people put on the main list some 
time back, saying that they were very religious and conservative and 
had previously avoided the HP books, but now that they've read them 
for themselves, they find that none of the dire warnings they heard 
about occultism were founded in anything close to fact.  These are 
the kind of testimonials that are needed out there to counter the 
rabid anti-HP sentiment, not the "Facing the Challenge" site.  I 
wish I had the time to comb through the archives searching...If 
anyone remembers posting anything like this, email me if you can 
remember about what time you posted or if you know the post number.  
I can say without reserve that it makes my day when I see things 
like this!

--Barb
 
Interfaith Working Group Co-Coordinator
http://www.iwgonline.org/