Religion and Harry

[Aberforth's Goat]

No: HPFGUIDX 23555

Err ... folks, can't we just drop this Abanes business and get onto more
interesting topics?

I'm a (Christian) theologian with a specialization in polemics, where
standard issue academic equipment includes a rhetorical machine gun and a
pyschological flack jacket. There aren't many things I enjoy more than going
at it hammer and tongs over my twin passions for theology and Harry Potter.

But one of the keys in polemics is to know when to can it. When people can't
discuss the issues without a guilliotine handy, it's time to stop. When you
can't even mention the name of the person most associated with any given
question (be it Abanes, Barth or Calvin) without having a brawl break out,
call a time out. Let it cool down some, and consider whether you're
discussing the issue in the right forum and from the right angle.

I just spent a while going through the original controversy (I slept through
it before), and I don't believe I saw much of anyone at their best. So be
it. Abanes has moved on, and I don't believe he needs or even desires to be
either rehabilited or re-incriminated on this list--and I certainly think it
wise of the mod squad to have impound all hatchets involved for a mass
burial.

But nobody ever said we can't discuss Harry Potter from an explicitly
religious perspective! If something someone read in the Bible or the Talmud
or the Bhagavad-Gita or the Watch Tower has significant bearing on Harry
Potter, let's hear about it! And if you'd like to debate whether the way Jo
envisions the moral attributes of the four Hogwarts houses suggests a sort
of subliminal Calvinism (which I happen to think!), whack that send button
till your thumb hurts. I don't think anyone has a problem with that.

However, discussing Harry Potter from a religious perspective is NOT the
same as using Harry Potter as a platform to discuss religion. In the same
way, discussing the Dursley's management style is NOT the same as moving
from the Grunnings' CEO to an extended discussion of my own boss. There's
nothing inherently wrong with the latter sort of discussion; in fact, that's
why we have an OT group. But it's not what HPfGU is for--and certainly not
if it's an emotionally loaded topic.

So perhaps, instead beating each other with dead horses, we could devote
some time to religion-related questions that are (1) compatible with this
list and (2) worth discussing.

Baaaaaa!

Aberforth's Goat (a.k.a. Mike Gray, who btw is *not* a moderator and is
interpreting group policy according to his own lights. He was serious about
the Calvnism bit, though, if anyone care to pick up on it ... )
_______________________

"Of course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, so that may not have been
bravery...."