[HPforGrownups] Religion & Law in HP (Was Re:Witches, Warlocks, Wizards, and JKR)

[Bart Lidofsky]

No: HPFGUIDX 168876

From: Goddlefrood <gav_fiji at yahoo.com>
Bart:
>
>> In intelligent Christian objections (intelligent being 
>> defined as based on knowledge rather than ignorance)
>
Goddlefrood:
>
>The ambiguity of the word ignorance is that it can mean both
>lack of knowledge and ignoring the facts, I'd be interested
>to know which one was meant as the context is not clear. It
>does seem to be the former usage, but I'd appreciate a 
>clarification.

I mean in the sense of lack of knowledge, although this lack of knowledge is often on purpose. I am referring to taking things out of context, using coincidence in language, not even reading the books being criticized, or the books on which the criticism is based (i.e. the Bible). 

An example of an argument based on ignorance: taking the mistranslated phrase, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.", interpreting it as meaning that witches should be killed while calling it a "literal meaning", defining the term "witch" as a Satan worshipper (even though there is NOTHING about that in the Bible), and, because the books use "witch" as the feminine of "wizard", claim that the books are all about devil worship, and will send all the readers to hell. 

Many of us, especially those who were in the computer and game industries, remember when a game publishing company was raided by the Secret Service, at least in part for publishing a manual for breaking into computers. Ignoring the fact that it was, and still is, perfectly legal to make such a publication, the "instructions for breaking into computers" essentially consisted of rolling some dice, and see if you score more than a certain amount. If you do, you break in. IT WAS A GAME. 

Similarly, many critics of the books claim that children are being given instructions on how to practice sorcery, that it glorifies human and animal sacrifice, that it teaches children that it's OK to send curses at your enemies, are, at best, twisting what's in the book. There's a DVD out, "HARRY POTTER: WITCHCRAFT REPACKAGED Making Evil Look Innocent". The author of the DVD describes the Harry Potter using the following: "Harry's books are about a young 11-year-old generational wizard, Harry Potter, who attends the prestigious 1000-year-old occult boarding school, Hogwart's School of witchcraft and Wizardry. All his teachers are practicing occultists, and tutor their students in the dark arts of sorcery and divination: fortune telling, astrology, potion mixing, spell weaving and curse casting. Harry's world says that drinking dead animal blood gives power, a satanic human sacrifice and Harry's powerful blood brings new life, demon possession is not spiritually dangerous, and that passing through fire, contacting the dead, and conversing with ghosts, others in the spirit world, and more, is normal and acceptable." People who read that, and don't read the books, will assume that it is an accurate description; not realizing that the books are, if anything, far more innocuous, even from a fundamentalist or evangelical Christian point of view, than, say, Grimm's Fairy Tales. 

The aforementioned author, Caryl Matrisciana, describes THE WIZARD OF OZ as innocuous compared to HARRY POTTER, when, in fact, they both are pretty much the same thing: putting fairy tales into a modern idiom. 

Finally, I'd like to say that I am quite familiar with, and not hostile to, fundamentalist and evangelical Chrsitian philosophies, am friends with a number of born-again Christians (who generally stop trying to witness to me when they realize that I know the script as well as they do), including a writer of books for young Christians. I have noted that, by and large, the movements have gone beyond the Jack Chick stage, and realize that it is better to push their philosophy by telling the truth about their opponents than lying. 

In an argument, I will often say, "Well, you disagree with me, but at least it's for the right reasons." When I say that, it means that it is my belief that my opponent has an understanding of the factual parts of the argument, and the disagreement is based on interpretations of the facts. I have no problem with religious criticism of the Harry Potter books, except when the criticism is based on half-truths and lies.

Bart