Debates about HP and Witchcraft

[mooseming]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Aberforths Goat / Mike Gray" 
<aberforthsgoat at ...> wrote:
>
> I'm trying to give a survey of religious controversies surrounding 
the HP,
> HDM and LB series, and I've run into a new HP question for you all:
> 
> Are conservative* Christians the only people who are really 
worried that HP
> could promote interest in the occult? From what I have seen and 
read and
> from what I can google, this has been almost exclusively a concern 
of the
> conservative Christian subculture - which has fought quite 
bitterly about
> it. Everyone else has just observed the ruckus and scratched their 
heads.
> That's what it looks like from where I am, but is that the way 
things
> actually are? 
> snip
> 
> Baaaaa,
> 
> Mike the Curious Goat
> --------------------
> *whatever that means
>

Hum, interesting question! Which of course I cannot answer, not 
least because I'm woefully ignorant re comparative religions. Still 
ignorance never stopped me having an opinion before. You have been 
warned!

OK conservative Christians and magic.

Firstly yes the Ccs do have a history of a fascination with the 
occult (Salem anyone?). Yet a vast amount of `magical' stuff , 
including that specifically aimed at children, hasn't made it onto 
their radar as far as I know. For example, Bewitched  , I Dream of 
Jeannie (US TV), Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Mary Poppins, Five 
Children and IT, the Narnia books, Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping 
Beauty, Peter Pan. Who could have guessed that HP would push their 
buttons? Actually we all could because:

HP is firmly based in the Christian tradition with themes of 
good/bad, moral choices and sacrifice. In other words its on their 
turf.

It is popular (understatement) and the Ccs perceive themselves as 
representative for the moral majority, anything widespread is 
therefore on their turf also.

HP draws much of its inspiration from and to a large part is about 
educational institutions . Ccs are evangelical/missionary, they 
believe in actively promoting their doctrine, any institution which 
is engaged in teaching must therefore `belong' to them. 
Representations of same are targets for criticism.

Ccs are fundamentalists, they have to make value judgements which 
are essentialist not relativist in nature. Something has to be 
ultimately good or bad.

HPis new and therefore unjudged, all historical cannon is deemed to 
have been judged already.
The judgement of HP does not have to be consistent with existing 
cannon. The argument progresses something like this:
`I read, enjoyed Cinderella, although I acknowledge there is magic 
and a fairy godmother who employs it but as it didn't corrupt me it 
can't be bad. HP is different from Cinderella because in HP the 
children use magic themselves and so can be seen to be bad. Whilst I 
recognise children do use magic themselves in say Bedknobs and 
Broomsticks they are not actively taught it so HP is different from 
that. Yes it is true that in Fantasia Micky Mouse learns magic but  
a cartoon mouse is not a real child. 

And so it goes on with the goalposts constantly moving in an 
argument that amounts to `this book is unique in its combination of 
themes ,characters etc so I reserve the right to judge it as bad on 
that alone'. Consequently ccs are prone to argue amongst themselves!

Ccs have a big voice in the English speaking world. They are 
networked into social structures so that they are able to get 
themselves heard. The media in particular seek out their opinions 
because they make `good' headlines. Once the headlines get made 
the `discussion' kicks off elsewhere.

So why have you (and I) heard a great deal from the ccs about HP? 
And why did they feel obliged to publicly pass judgement? Why did 
they pass a negative judgement? Why haven't we heard from other 
moral institutions?

Ccs have a loud voice.
Anything new in their territory of morality, majority, education 
will be judged publicly.
That judgement has to be either good or bad.
There is a historical ambivalence to things magical. 
There is also an historical precedent for magical children's books.
HP didn't *have* to be judged as bad  although that doesn't 
necessarily mean HP *can't* be judged as bad.

However, who would have reported :

SHOCK/HORROR
 `Right wing Christians think HP is mostly harmless fun with a good 
solid moral message about making the right choices!' 

If we take this analysis (if I can call it that) and apply it to 
other religions I would expect to see some ignoring HP as it doesn't 
fall into their territory, some deciding on the whole it's a good or 
at least harmless thing (although this would not be deducible from 
previous judgements) and some following the CC approach. 

Of the first two groups we would hear nothing (as they create no 
headline material) and the third would probably be drowned out by 
the CC anyway unless they were of a similar strength and size. Given 
comparative status we still may not hear from these people 
because `religion x agrees with religion y' is again not headline 
material.

So I can't really say the cc response is necessarily indicative that 
they are responding to a  witch fetish , although I can't rule it 
out, however their acceptance of many other magical style children's 
books rather suggests not.

Nor can I say we haven't heard in the wider public sphere from other 
moral institutions because they *don't* have a thing about witches 
as what we hear is a result of what `makes' headlines and who made 
the news first.

What their private response is I cannot possibly say or even guess 
at. Personally I hope they are focussing on less trivial issues (and 
I never thought I'd call HP trivial!!!).

I for one believe there are enough truly `bad' things happening to 
children around the world that demonising a children's book is at 
best a distraction and at worst a cynical act of self justification 
and power grabbing. But then I'm an idealist. Who, btw, hasn't 
answered your question ;-)

Regards
Jo