Religion & Law in HP and Smelting Sticks

[Goddlefrood]

No: HPFGUIDX 168897

> 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.

> Bart:

> 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). 

Goddlefrood:

So, then, wilful ignorance as well as not being knowledgeable, 
thanks for the clarification.

I agree with the sentiments expressed by Bart and have noted 
that many an argument relative to the detriment that would, in
the argument of those attacking the HP books, be incurred by
the younger reader or listener is based on no real grasp of 
the facts. Personally I doubt if these people have actually
a deep understanding of the Bible, in any form. What I think 
is that too literal an interpretation of just about anything
can lead to problems, except of course contracts ;-).

Mind you, even then it can lead to problems :-?

If anyone has any view of the underlying Christian doctrine, 
which is, after all, based more on the New Testament than the 
Old Testament, that differs from mine, which I would summarise
as: be tolerant to others and respect different views, even if
you do not believe in those views; or, even more simply: live 
and let live, then I would be interested to receive them.

I certainly do not think that the books are in any way subversive,
neither are they trying to undermine society in any way. They
are enjoyable, amusing and a grand diversion from weightier
issues, but ultimately they will not change the world, IMO.

> In:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/168870

> Carol enquired about Public School traditions and whether they
were thought parodic.

Goddlefrood:

Let me say first I was expelled from some very fine schools in 
my time ;-)

I have first hand experience of several quite eminent Public
Schools in England, having actually been to them and enjoyed
the lunacy that goes on in them, at least at times.

JKR's portrayal of the Smeltings Stick and uniform does show 
some parody of the system. It seems to me, though, that it is 
more based on what used to happen, rather than what does now 
happen in such institutions. My thoughts on reading about 
Smeltings were that it was based largely on matters contained 
in "Tom Brown's Schooldays: by Thomas Hughes, that was published 
first in the mid-nineteenth century.

Flashman was the famous bully from that book and George 
MacDonald Fraser has written a series of books that continue 
until now about Flashman and his adventures after school.

So, yes, it is a parody. Some of the traditions continue at 
some of these institutions and the Public School slang is a 
vast and developing one. The tuck shop was a favoured haunt 
of this Old Salopian when there, but the Tucks was not such
fun (it was a school running race and compulsory). 

Penals were little fun either, but from them I developed my
early writing style (a penal is a fully written out page of
lined A4 paper). Detentions and tardy book were two matters
that concerned me largely too, I held the school record for 
the tardy book, and possibly still do as I was hardly ever 
not signing it (a punishment for skipping breakfast).

Eton and the other place are, of course, even more traditional
still than was my school, so any more expert inmates from 
either of those two would have more bizarre tales to tell you 
than I could, although some might make one's hair curl ;-)

Goddlefrood