[HPforGrownups] Re: Baptism/Christianity in HP/DD and Draco

[Magpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 153423

> Leslie:
> Well, I guess my one disagreement there would be that Lily and James
> were "nominal" Christians.  "Nominal" Christians do not make a
> singular effort to have their infant baptized in a "hurried affair"
> with just them and the godfather present. Obviously Lily and James
> were under duress, hunted by Voldemort, etc. Nevertheless they took
> the time and trouble to see to it their son was baptized.  Were
> they "nominal" Christians they would not have bothered about it, I
> think.

Magpie:
They might have.  A christening is a family gathering that has meaning 
beyond Harry being welcomed into a specific church.  (Some family members 
have been known to be pressured into christening a child because it will 
please other family members too--not that I'm saying this is what happened 
with James and Lily.)  More importantly, it seems that Sirius being 
godfather was a significant role in terms of his looking after Harry. 
Sirius seems to take the role seriously, but not in the sense that he's got 
to give Harry religious instruction.  The Christening is very important for 
plot purposes to give Harry some tie to Sirius, which seems like the 
important part--but it is a Christening, not a naming ceremony or a made-up 
wizarding ritual.

Betsy Hp:
I think, though, that this is a good example of Dumbledore wearing two 
different hats, and that when those two hats collide, he goes more for the 
"Leader of the Order" role, rather than the "Headmaster
of Hogwarts" role.

Because, for all intents and purposes, Dumbledore *has* proof.  At least, 
enough for him to be sure of Draco's activities.  Assuming DDM!Snape (which 
I do), Dumbledore would know what Snape knew.  It's not enough for a legal 
trial (possibly, though in the WW, who knows <g>), but it's certainly 
enough, I'd think, for Dumbledore to feel he knew what Draco was attempting.

Magpie:
Also he doesn't seem to be trying to investigate it that we see.  The 
identity of the murderer isn't really a mystery.  It is for Harry, but even 
Harry only ever has one suspect: Draco.  And I think Dumbledore's reaction 
to him says that he knows it's Draco too.

Betsy:
Draco *must* be given the opportunity to reach a crossroads where he's 
forced to finally take an active role in his own life.  It supports the 
theme of the books and makes for interesting reading. (Imagine HBP if Draco 
had suddenly disappeared after Katie
got hurt.)  Just as in PS/SS the text required that Dumbledore hide the 
Stone at his school and give Quirrell free rein even *after* Harry is nearly 
assassinated on the school grounds.  And just as the
text required Dumbledore to keep Tom Riddle's psychopathic tendencies to 
himself even after a family of Muggles of the same name are murdered.

Magpie:
Yup.  And while it may be Machiavellian in RL terms, I can see Dumbledore's 
logic given the universe in which he lives.  I suspect even the way that 
DD's plan went wrong with Draco will ultimately be better in terms of 
development for Draco.

Pippin:
Dumbledore may have been morally certain that Draco was behind the attacks, 
but the moment the authorities start substituting moral certainty for 
evidence is the moment the Crouch Srs take over.

Magpie:
But Dumbledore already does this all the time.  I understand where you're 
coming from in terms of an objective look at the case, with DD not having 
evidence to really pin the attempts on Draco.  But I don't think Dumbledore 
is looking for evidence that Draco is behind the murders.  He actively tries 
to shut down Harry's own investigation for evidence.  Dumbledore has no 
problem overriding official channels in favor of plans known only to 
himself, in the tradition of white bearded wizards throughout literature. 
Anyone asks him why he trusts Snape he gives them moral certainty instead of 
evidence.

-m