Posted on 06/03/2004 9:38:49 AM PDT by BobbyBeeper
FIRST-PERSON: Is Harry Potter merely entertainment? Jun 2, 2004 By Phil Boatwright
"Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" Photo courtesy of harrypotter.com
THOUSAND OAKS, Calif. (BP)--"I love Harry Potter. I think it would be so cool to be a witch," Sharon, age 11, says.
That's my answer to anyone who says J.K. Rowling's adventure series is harmless fantasy.
While the Harry Potter book and film series has held a hypnotic fascination for youngsters, its thematic foundation is troubling. Arguably, perceptive children can view such material without succumbing to the snare of the occult, but it would be naive to think that movies and TV programs containing witchcraft are not aiding the rise of Wicca in our culture.
In a television special titled "Hollywood Spirituality" which aired several years back on E! Entertainment, Raven Mounauni, a professing witch and owner of an occult paraphernalia store, credited the 1996 movie "The Craft" with inspiring young women to explore the world of witches. "I get a lot of teenage girls in here. You can always tell when 'The Craft' has been on TV, 'cause we get a big influx of girls looking for supplies."
Occult practices shouldn't be considered just diverting amusement. Ouija boards, psychic readers and other forms of misleading supernatural entertainment should not be taken lightly. In Leviticus 19:26 we are instructed, "Do not practice divination or sorcery." There are several warnings in the Scriptures, both Old and New Testament, making it clear that we are to avoid witchcraft or anything associated with the occult. So if God is instructing us to avoid occult practices, how can we justify using it to entertain ourselves?
This may not be a popular view right now. The first Harry Potter film installment earned $969 million worldwide. J.K. Rowlings' five books on the young wizard have become a phenomenon, allowing the author to become the richest woman in England, with assets beyond $1 billion. That would indicate that many parents find nothing wrong with these children's adventures.
There are even a couple of books out right now exclaiming parallels between the Potter books and the Gospel. One author suggests the books help relate Christian themes and truths, opening the door for talking about things such as right and wrong, the nature of faith, loyalty, bravery and trust. Honestly, I think that's a bit thin. Yes, Rowlings’ themes deal with honor, friendship and self-sacrifice, but the kids in Harry Potter gravitate to sorcery in order to accomplish these attributes. And even if there are positive elements associated with the series, you simply can't ignore the witchcraft equation.
Members of Wicca teach a philosophy that embraces no absolute truth or sin and replaces the patriarchal male creator God of the Bible with a belief in both male and female gods. Its credo instructs members to embrace spirits and conjure spells in order to control their lives and the lives of others. There are millions of practicing witches worldwide. Indeed, Wicca has become one of the fastest-growing religions in the world today.
OK, it's good that children are reading. But what is it they're reading? Shouldn't that be considered? When an author makes $1 billion on five books that have sorcery as a main theme, and renowned secular critics hail the films as incredible filmmaking without examining their occult roots, I question what's really behind this phenom.
Is it merely entertainment? Or is there a dark spiritual source feeding and supporting it? I realize that may sound like a stretch, but often Satan is most deceiving with a glossed-over package. Wouldn't it be a shame if kids got pulled into witchcraft, while their folks thought of the books and films as merely children's fantasy? --30-- Phil Boatwright is a film reviewer and editor of The Movie Reporter, on the Web at www.moviereporter.com. (BP) photo posted in the BP Photo Library at http://www.bpnews.net. Photo title: HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKAB
You keep making this distinction without a difference.
Any given fact situation can interpreted as "the ends justifying the means" (you must do X, which is bad, to obtain Y, which is good) or "the lesser of two evils" (you must choose between action resulting in X, which is bad, or inaction resulting in not-Y, which is also bad). The two are simply different names for the same moral dilemma.
No, you will take that answer as what it is: "Aquinasfan is hereby exposed as an exponent of the sort of marxist class-warfare drivel that belongs on DU, not FR".
No, we might reject them all. If we do, it will be because they have failed to meet the required standard (i.e. the evidence must be sufficiently sound that faking it would require a greater miracle than the alleged supernatural event itself would be).
It's logically impossible to present empirical evidence of supernatural phenomena to a dogmatic materialist.
Nonsense. Plenty of people (though not you, so far) have presented empirical evidence of supernatural phenomena. (For instance, I recall one instance of a stigmatic priest in the DC area a few years back.) None of the evidence to date has gotten anywhere near the threshold of being convincing (see above), but it obviously was not "logically impossible" to present it.
Very subtle. It would take someone with true spiritual discernment to pick up on that.
Subtle, very subtle.
That standard works for me, although we probably understand it differently.
Plenty of people (though not you, so far) have presented empirical evidence of supernatural phenomena.
OK. Here is a list of ongoing miraculous phenomena available to the public for examination at any time, which have also been the subject of rigorous scientific investigation.
The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano
The Shroud of Turin
-Shroud linked with Sudarium
Fatima
Image on the tilma of Guadalupe
Incorrupt bodies of the saints
The blood of St. Januarius
You steal a car from the house of a millionaire (who owns ten cars) because your family can't afford one.
Your car breaks down on a cold, snowy winter night. Your family is in danger of freezing to death. You steal a car from the house of a millionaire (who owns ten cars) and drive to safety.
The first case is an example of the ends justifying the means. The second case is an example of choosing the lesser evil.
Hmmm... I wonder which it will be?
On the one hand is the evil of failing to do whatever it is you needed the car for. On the other is the evil of theft. The difference between the two cases is that the former evil is trivial (e.g. you can't spend as much time with the family because you have to ride the bus) in the first case and severe (e.g. you can't protect your family's lives) in the second case.
Or, alternatively, you are contemplating the means of grand theft auto to achieve the end of being able to drive home from the office (first case) or to achieve the end of saving the lives of your family (the second case).
Again, a distinction without a difference.
(And, even if we stipulate that there is a difference, you have utterly failed to respond to the arguments raised by people who have actually read the HP books that the protagonist is, in fact, correctly choosing the lesser of two evils when he finds it necessary to do so.)
In the first case, the father commits an evil (car theft) to bring about a good (a car for his needy family). The correct moral decision is not to steal the car because the first principle of morality is to do good and avoid evil.
In the second case, the father has a choice between doing nothing and risking the lives of his family or stealing a car. Both acts are intrinsically evil, but car theft is the lesser evil. The father would be absolved of moral culpability for choosing the lesser evil.
In every case in the Potter books is Harry choosing the lesser evil, or doing evil so that good may come? Somehow I doubt that it's always the former.
Regardless, this is a tangential objection to the series. The central objection is that the protagonist is a practicing wizard/warlock.
Have you answered my question yet about whether a person should be allowed by the State to sell himself into slavery, or hire someone to kill him?
Since you admit to being uninformed, your views on the subject are worthless.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.