Posted on 03/17/2008 7:44:22 AM PDT by Terriergal
By John-Henry Westen
EDINBURGH, March 12, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The newly released edition of the Edinburgh University Student newspaper, the oldest student newspaper in the UK, includes an interview with Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling. In the interview Rowling claims to have received death threats from Christians opposed to her novels, calling Christian 'fundamentalists' "dangerous" and comparing them by inference to Islamic fundamentalists.
Asked if there were not some Christians who dislike the book 'intensely', Rowling replied, "Oh, vehemently and they send death threats." Questioned about the 'death threats', she added, "Once, yeah. Well, more than once. It is comical in retrospect. I was in America, and there was a threat made against a bookstore that I was appearing at, so we had the police there."
While she said she could stomach critics, she had little time for Christian criticism. "But to be honest the Christian Fundamentalist thing was bad," she said. "I would have been quite happy to sit there and debate with one of the critics who were taking on Harry Potter from a moral perspective."
Many Christians who have opposed the Potter series have done so after reading comments by Christian reviewers pointing out their moral and spiritual dangers. The opponents, who have been relying on the reviewers criticisms, have often avoided reading Rowling's lengthy Potter narratives, and Rowling uses such cases to paint Christians as if they were insane.
"I've tried to be rational about it," she told the paper. "There's a woman in North Carolina or Alabama who's been trying to get the books banned-she's a mother of four and never read them. And then- I'm not lying, I'm not even making fun, this is the truth of what she said-quite recently she was asked [why] and she said 'Well I prayed whether or not I should read them, and God told me no.'"
The interviewer notes that at that point "Rowling pauses to reflect on the weight of that statement, and her expression one of utter disbelief." Rowling then continued, "You see, that is where I absolutely part company with people on that side of the fence, because that is fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is, 'I will not open my mind to look on your side of the argument at all. I won't read it, I won't look at it, I'm too frightened.'"
"That's what's dangerous about it, whether it be politically extreme, religiously extreme...In fact, fundamentalists across all the major religions, if you put them in a room, they'd have bags in common! They hate all the same things, it's such an ironic thing."
Michael O'Brien, one of the most prominent Potter critics, has carefully read and analyzed the Potter books critiquing the spiritual and moral problems with Rowling's works. O'Brien commented to LifeSiteNews.com about Rowling's mockery of Christians who avoid her works.
"Regrettably, there is a strange new form of self-righteousness at work in the world-a psychological state of mind that is common to post-modernists such as J. K. Rowling," said O'Brien. "One of its symptoms is their inability to discuss on a serious level the truth or untruth of their cultural products. They avoid the real issues and instead take the 'ad hominem' approach-personal attacks against those who raise critical objections to the disorders in their books. From the vaccuum of real thought arises the dreary habit of classifying as a 'fundamentalist' any critic who bases his arguments on religious or spiritual grounds."
Added O'Brien: "This term is used against bomb-throwing terrorists, sweet grandmothers praying silently before abortuaries, and anyone who preaches the fullness of the Christian faith in church and media. It has become the utmost smear word, a weapon that is proving quite effective in silencing opposition. If you don't have an argument yourself, you just switch tactics and cry 'fundamentalist!' Supposedly all opposition will then collapse."
In previous interviews Rowling has said Christian criticism of her works come from the "lunatic fringe" of the church.
Prior to being elected Pope, then-Cardinal Ratzinger expressed an opinion opposing the Potter books. He sent a letter of gratitude to Gabriele Kuby who authored a work explaining the dangers of the Potter story, especially to young children. Made available by LifeSiteNews.com, Ratzinger's letter to Ms. Kuby stated, "It is good, that you enlighten people about Harry Potter, because those are subtle seductions, which act unnoticed and by this deeply distort Christianity in the soul, before it can grow properly."
Father Gabriele Amorth, chief exorcist of the Vatican also condemned the books warning parents, "Behind Harry Potter hides the signature of the king of the darkness, the devil." Father Amorth criticized the novels for glorifying magic, which he explicitly refers to as "the satanic art", and for presenting disordered perceptions of morality in the supposedly heroic main characters.
See related LifeSiteNews coverage:
Pope Opposes Harry Potter Novels - Signed Letters from Cardinal Ratzinger Now Online
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/jul/05071301.html
Harry Potter Feature Page:
http://www.lifesite.net/features/harrypotter/
Other than Ian McKellan, of whom do you speak? He came out long before the LOTR movies did.
It doesn't matter what their reason was, they have every right to take actions and how schools are run. Just because someone articulates a Christian arguement, it doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to voice that opinion. It's OK for Jews or Blacks or Gay to voice objections when they are offended? Are Christians second-class citizens that don't deserve the right to speak their opinions? That seems to be what you are saying.
Of course it is! The Bible offends muslims, and unlike a Christian, a muslim is much more apt to express his displeasure with the local school board in a decidedly unambiguous and lethal fashion...
Christianity. Teachings of Jesus.
So if I object to it that immediately implies that I haven’t read it?
So if I had read it, I wouldn’t object to it?
No one seems to quite get that that is always the way it works.
Don’t like Harry Potter? If not, ask yourself this: do you hate it enough to see the Bible banned right along with it?
Please see post #283...
Fine.
Just recognize and get used to the fact that the Bible is next in line for banning.
And realize that Christians who want to ban books from public life are admitting that they are exactly like Islamic fundamentalists who claim that humans are far too weak to see certain movies, read certain books, listen to certain music, look at certain pictures, or wear certain clothes.
That point of view, which has always been diametrically opposed to Christianity, which has us made in the Lord’s image; has man as fundamentally bad and always on the verge of sin and ruin.
But I guess it’s worth adopting the Islamic fundamentalist point of view and all that goes with it if it means we can get rid of that awful Harry Potter.
Right?
Dunno about that. I was two when LoTR first hit the shelves, and it was obscure for years afterward. I seem to recall some flak of this sort in the 70's, but couldn't give you a source.
The sort of "criticism" that Tolkien got when LoTR first appeared was from other medieval scholars who would snidely observe, "So that's why he hasn't been publishing any 'serious' work!"
Yeah, and I read Dickens in school only because it was required reading. Too wordy, obviously written for magazines.
Rock a bye Baby ain’t exactly a happy lullaby either.
Mostly it was Viggo Mortensen and Sean Astin that made the comments that I recall. McKellan made a big point out of trying to out Elijah Wood, but he was outraged at the comments. It very well may have been another inside joke that they were not sharing - Wood purportedly has a reel of the outtakes where they acted intentionally gay in the filming for the laughs.
Judging by the amount of time and space given to Sean Astin and Eljiah Wood decrying the comments since then, this might very well be the case. Of course, the comments went around as headlines and the retractions/corrections have to fight for attention.
It doesn't matter what their reason was, they have every right to take actions and how schools are run. Just because someone articulates a Christian arguement, it doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to voice that opinion. It's OK for Jews or Blacks or Gay to voice objections when they are offended? Are Christians second-class citizens that don't deserve the right to speak their opinions? That seems to be what you are saying.
You are right! thanks!
Sean Astin is a Democrat, but a moderate Democrat who’s done work for the Department of Defense. Viggo Mortensen, OTOH, is a flaming liberal and one of the biggest tools of all time.
On the other side, John Rhys-Davies, the actor who played Gimli, is a conservative.
Thanks.
The Bible is already banned from class rooms for the most part, in case you haven't noticed. Kids can spend weeks reading Harry Potter books in class, but just see what happens if a teacher would have kids read a chapter from the Bible. There would be a dozen lawsuits that night from the ACLU.
And realize that Christians who want to ban books from public life are admitting that they are exactly like Islamic fundamentalists who claim that humans are far too weak to see certain movies, read certain books, listen to certain music, look at certain pictures, or wear certain clothes.
Children's time is limited, as are library resources. Which books occupy their time should not be decided by some left-wing ALA group who wants to push their agenda.
That point of view, which has always been diametrically opposed to Christianity, which has us made in the Lord’s image; has man as fundamentally bad and always on the verge of sin and ruin.
No where in the Bible does it promote exposing yourself to sin to test your flesh. We were created in God's image, but we have fallen, and there has been only one who has been able to remain sinless. We are weak, and we need salvation. You seem to think otherwise.
But I guess it’s worth adopting the Islamic fundamentalist point of view and all that goes with it if it means we can get rid of that awful Harry Potter.
Over the top rhetoric gets you no where. Equating someone right to try to express their opinion on Harry Potter, to a government who kills people who don't worship correctly is an absurd comparison.
Other than McKellan, I’m pretty sure the other guys were just clowning around.
Viggo’s an airhead and spoke out against the war (as did others). But, AFAIK, McKellan was the only one openly gay and verbal about it.
I could be wrong.
Now that time has passed, it is amazing how much can be found that makes me think it was a joke gone horribly wrong. It suited the MSM and the internet to pass it on promoting the gay agenda at the time. I’ll withdraw that as an example, though I still remember this happening... the comments after McKellan spoke. Viggo, for sure, was right there with him - but Viggo’s an airhead as his war comments proved.
JKR is not very logical, I guess. :-)
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.