Posted on 11/29/2001 4:10:16 AM PST by Aquinasfan
In the last two months of this year, two of the most eagerly anticipted movies of 2001 will hit theaters. Both are the first in a projected series of films, adapted from the first volumes of two popular series of books written by British authors who go by their initials. Both series, and both films, deal with magic and wizardry. The authors, of course, are J. K. Rowling and J. R. R. Tolkien; and the films are Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone and The Fellowship of the Ring. The former, due in November, is the first of what will surely be a number of films based upon Rowling’s projected series of seven Harry Potter books; and the latter, coming Christmas, is the first of Peter Jackson’s series of three films based on Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, slated for consecutive Christmas releases from 2001 to 2003.
Among many Christians, the coming of these two films is a herald of renewed debate. On the one hand, the works of Tolkien have been almost universally embraced by literate Christians, who have long recognized the richness and beauty of Tolkien’s Middle-earth as well as the profound influence of Tolkien’s Christian and Catholic faith upon the shape of his imaginary world. Christian fans of Tolkien also tend to be fans of C. S. Lewis, whose seven-volume series The Chronicles of Narnia is also a work of Christian imagination that involves magic and wizardry. The Harry Potter books, on the other hand, have met with decidedly mixed reactions among Christian readers. In both Catholic and Protestant circles, some have enthusiastically embraced Rowling’s popular series, at times even explicitly making comparisons to Tolkien and Lewis (at least as regards the use of magic and wizardry). Others, however, have attacked the young hero of Rowling’s series as a veritable poster child for the occult.
The quality of the discussion hit its lowest point with the advent of an ever-spreading email campaign based on facetious statements in a satirical essay in the Onion.com, a humor website. That essay, complete with made-up “quotes” from Rowling and her young readers (advocating the Church of Satan and mocking the death of Christ), has been mistakenly distributed as genuine reportage by innumerable Christians, achieving urban legend status. But even relatively sober arguments on the subject have too often been superficial, relying on guilt — or innocence — by association.
There’s something about Harry
Before plunging into the moral debate over the magic of Harry Potter, it’s worth noting that, in general terms, the Harry Potter stories have real merit as literature and entertainment, and perhaps social and moral merits as well (along with some moral drawbacks). They are well-written, lively, exciting, and quite funny, with vividly imagined creations and engaging characterizations. Moreover, although highly fantastical and imaginative, Rowling’s narratives are packed with knowledgable allusions and references to historical myths, legends, superstitions, and so forth, so seamlessly woven into the fabric of the narratives that even literate adults may not catch them all. Tie-in books with names like The Magical Worlds of Harry Potter offer readers insight into the cultural backgrounds of many elements in Rowling’s stories, potentially turning an exercise in entertainment and diversion into a genuine learning experience.
On a moral level, the Harry Potter books offer villains who are utterly odious and despicable, and protagonists who are, if not quite charitable or forbearing, at least brave and loyal. Courage and loyalty are, in fact, significant themes in the books, along with the evils of prejudice and oppression. Best of all, there are wise and competent adult authority-figures, especially brilliant and commanding Albus Dumbledore, Headmaster of Hogwarts School of Wizardry and Witchcraft, who inspires boundless confidence as being always in control of the situation, who virtually never makes a mistake, and whom no one can for long have at a disadvantage. (On the other hand, the series takes too long for my taste to get around to pointing out the problem of Harry’s repeated failures to avert potential disasters by not seeking help from Dumbledore as soon as possible.) And what of Harry himself? He’s a decent enough and likable fellow, with nothing of the bully or troublemaker in him. He’s not one to make an enemy — though, should someone make an enemy of him, Harry will make war on that person with every weapon at his disposal. The notion of turning the other cheek or using a soft answer to turn away wrath is completely foreign here; and even the more sober voices, such as that of his friend Hermione (whom Rowling has said of all her characters most resembles herself), generally caution Harry on purely prudential grounds, not moral ones. One aspect of the Harry Potter books that has raised some moral concern is the recurring theme of rule-breaking. Like many young children, Harry and his friends break a lot of rules (“about fifty,” Hermione figures at one point, and Dumbledore elsewhere reckons their transgressions at twice that number). Sometimes Harry is legitimately driven by necessity to break a rule; other times it’s only because he feels like it. Sometimes he is caught, sometimes not; sometimes he is punished, sometimes not. At first glance, this may seem like mere honest storytelling, depicting a typically imperfect young boy whose behavior sometimes leaves a bit to be desired. Yet closer examination reveals that Harry and his friends are only ever really punished for breaking rules when they’re caught by one of the nasty authority figures, particularly spiteful Professor Snape. When it’s one of the benevolent authority figures, such as genial Dumbledore, or even stern Professor McGonagall, there are no real consequences for breaking any number of rules, because Harry’s heart is in the right place, or because he is a boy of destiny, or something like that.
Another area of concern for some are the dark, scary, or grotesque elements in these stories: the Dementors, dreadful creatures almost as horrifying as Tolkien’s Nazgûl; a spell gone awry that leaves one of Harry’s friends coughing and choking on slugs issuing from his throat; a school washroom toilet apparently haunted by the ghost of a dead student; disembodied voices breathing murderous threats; anthropomorphic mandrake roots that look and scream like living human babies but may be transplanted or destroyed at will by teachers and students; and many others.
Taken altogether, it seems fair to say the Harry Potter stories are something of a mixed bag, with some genuinely worthwhile elements and some legitimate points of concern. Of course, for many parents who have children that love the books or who want to read them, the question may be not so much “Is this the best possible book my child could ever read?” as “Is this all right for my child to read? Or must I forbid it?”...
Click here for the entire article.
As for "The notion of turning the other cheek or using a soft answer to turn away wrath is completely foreign here; ..." The author of the article is simply lying. I refer you to the last couple of chapters in the third book, in which these attributes are not only displayed at great risk to Harry, but are also singled out by Dumbledore as Harry's defining characteristic.
There is also a line at the end of the movie, which I paraphrase: "It takes great courage to stand up to your enemies, but even more to stand up to your friends."
I would like to know, too.
The Church Lady purses her lips, raises her eyebrows, puts her hands on her hips and says,
"Could it be....MAKE BELIEVE?"?!?!?!?!?
[it's a joke people okay?]
Check out the story of Saul and the witch of Endor.
Not that peoply don't try, but bad people can twist any ideology into a justification of evil deeds. Bad people continue to do bad things.
On your first point, I agree with you!!! As to the second... it ends up being about "personal responsibility". They try to blame it on their childhhood, or drugs, but it all comes back to "personal responsibility".
I mentioned in an reply before this,.. it is akin to hypnosis. They alter their state of mind. Nothing "tangible" comes from it. Sure, it's misguided and sometimes evil. Those people do evil things by "thinking" that sacrificing chickens, or even human lives as has been done before, will give them something. But I'd like to see all the wealth, happiness, good looks or women/men they got from it.
Seems to me,.. people explore it out of curiosity, or maybe even a need to be accepted, only to be disappointed, and turn away from it.
If Wizardry, Shamanism, Wicca or any of that was really true.. how come no one really stays with it?? Why aren't they living forever.. or rich?? Because it isn't real.
Because the people who pratice it,.. are for the time they do "MENTALLY ILL". I applaud RMrattlesnake for leaving it, for finding the path to true happiness. But if he is honest.. he will admit there was NO POWER in it. Thats the "TRUTH" and we are to always speak the truth!!
We had friends who do not have a belief system. When they lost their only child in that childs senior year, they tried to become Shamans. All our friends left them. My husband and I did not. We didn't fear what they were doing.. we felt sad about it, and we prayed for them. We loved them despite it. And they gave it up eventually, like after a couple years.
Why?? Because they could not conjur up their child to talk to him/her, which is what they had hoped to do. They were lost, because to them their child was just GONE. No heaven, no afterlife.
People who "believe" have somewhere to go with their grief that "is" real. They didn't. They still aren't believers in God or Christ. (We are still their friends, and we are hoping that one day by our example of love, they will become Christians). So they are still lost.. but with the grace of God, they will find true happiness, and eternal life.
So.. Shamanism failed them miserably. It wasn't real!!! And trust me.. they had buried their child on their own property,.. they had built a meditation hut above the grave with silk curtains and a candle shandalier that lowered,..and in a field in front of all that,..they put HUGE stones in a circle..and had beautiful white flowing gowns made for each of them. They did the full monty!!! :o) But then, we knew they were misguided. We knew it wasn't going to work. We let them work through it..and loved them. So they are a perfect example of people wishing something so hard.. trying so hard to believe in something.. but it not working. I think RMrattlesnake was in the same situation. I'm glad he found God. But I hope he will be honest and look at that period of his life and speak HONESTLY about its validity. Obviously it let him down. Thats the bigger story here!!
The only thing to fear from what he experienced,..was the people involved. NOT MAGIC.. it wasn't real. Yes, "real" and probably nightmarish things happened.. but nothing "came" from it. They GOT nothing for it.. otherwise they would never leave it. If they COULD SEE the fruits of their labors, and spells. Why would they leave it? It defies logic. Thus like you said js1138.. idiocy!!!
There's a risk in trying to be the warner. You risk warning people away from your belief just as much as warning people away from your target. Probably the greatest source of irritation is inaccuracy. Whenever you, or somebody like you, say something that is untrue, or taken out of context, or viewed to be twisted in any way you have invalidated your entire arguement, and may have put the last straw on someones back.
I say this next part with a (temporarily) altered world view. I am now assuming that you are correct, that HP is drawing kids to the occult, that the occult is very real and dangerous. I say that to let you know I am not taking this next advice lightly. If you really want to warn people you have got to have primary source knowledge, and plenty of it. Because if you can't speak from the belly of the beast, if your information is only coming from those that say they have this primary source knowledge (many of whom clearly don't) you will run up against people (like me) that do, and they'll tear your arguements to shreds. You're going to have to read it, watch it and listen to it. And "it" means the stuff you think is drawing people to the occult, and the occult itself. I realize there is risk involved, but the risk if you don't do that is that your arguements will have a foundation of sand and will be ineffective. You've got to know enough to know that the spells in HP consists of nothing more than waving a wand (that is made with griffin and phoenix parts) and saying rhyming stuff in Latin (like that's hard, Latin was designed to rhyme; that's how you know which nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs all go together), which is clearly not real magic. And you've got to know enough to know that sometimes when people make songs abut Aleister Crowley they're making fun of him (referencing Ozzy Osborne's song that gets him in so much trouble, anybody that's actually read Crowley know's just from Ozzy's pronunciation that Ozzy is mocking Crowley... treating him fouly as the rhyme goes). You've got to know that anybody that says they were involved in Wicca and that they were "close friends with warlocks" is lieing (I posted that answer last week). Basically, if you want to tell people about hell, you're going to have to at least take the $.02 tour and it would be better to spend a few days there and get to know the natives.
And don't forget, I'll be hounding you every step of the way. I'm sure my tendency to be drawn to stuff that certain Christians later find objectionable isn't going to end any time soon. And I will defend my hobbies from all misfeasance and malfeasance with great dedication and furious effort.
I've been involved with Wicca for 10 years this coming January.
It's very difficult to define absoulutely logically what makes it interesting for me; but a lot of it is to do with the country in which I live (England), its landscape, its heart and its traditions. There is also a sense of the female side of the Divine in Wicca, which I found was almost entirely missing from Christianity. I'm male (and straight, before you ask!!), but it's still important IMHO, to acknowledge Goddess as well as God.
I became involved with it via a few talks I attended in January 1992, in London, given by Vivianne Crowley whio has written many books on Wicca (no relation to Alistair Crowley, BTW). I was interested in what I heard and ended up being initiated in October 1992.
Hope this answers your questions!
I've known LOTS of deadheads (even was one myself for about two weeks, then I sobered up and realized that I hated the music). While they're certainly into dropping acid and smoking pot the route to paganism generally goes through gronola earth muffin environmentalism. About as close as most deadheads get to paganism is beating drums around campfires, and they usually get into that for sex that tends to follow. Your average doper (speaking from first hand experience here) will believe just about anything for 20 minutes, after that if they're not getting laid they revert back to non-belief.
As I recall, the name deadhead is from the tibetian book of the dead,
Sort of kind of but not really. The Grateful Dead were really a transition from the beat culture to the hippy culture. The beat culture members were called beatniks, and the nik part was almost definitely a phoenetic corruption of "nec" Greek (I think) for dead and where we get words like necropolis. And while the Tibetan book of the dead had a little to do with it, it more tied into the fact that they were into dressing in all black and sleeping all day, so they kind of looked dead. Overall beat was mostly into bongo drumming, bad poetry and worse coffee. They used to show Dobbie Gillis (Gilligan before he found out about beaches and farm girls in cutoffs) on Nic at Night, and of coruse their nic as nothing to do with the beatnik nik, but that's a whole nother paragraph.
promoted by one LSD proponent Timothy Leary, who also wrote another book, I believe it was called High Priest, with a picture of him as a satanic priest. Just more harmless fun, I suppose, right?
As for dear old Mr. Leary he was actually straight during the hayday of beatnik. While certainly his acid eating, and the whacky changes that happened to him, was one of the driving forces of hippydom all the pieces to make the Grateful Dead were in place on the other side of the country. The Dead were formed up in California, and their first regular gigs were playing for Kesey's "acid tests" (open to the public LSD parties, it wasn't illegal yet). Kesey of course is the author of One Flew Over the Cuckoos nest and was good friends with Ginsburg and other members of the beat crowd. Kesey and company didn't really like Leary that much, he was kind of a snob, and so were they. All of this of course is very well outlined in Tom Wolfe's The Electric Kool-Aide Acid Test. Great book, quick read. A must read if you're going to start poking at the Dead and their fans. And since it's written by an East Coast tuxedo wearing straight, definitely NOT a recruitment book.
Tolkien said that it wasn't, even though he realized some readers might see it that way.
No, that's called conning people. Don't give manipulative dirtbags more credit than they deserve. Unless you're actually going to say that Madison Avenue is a den of wizards and covens, in which case you're beyond hope.
From what I've seen of the movie trailers, they definitely followed the Hildebrandt conception of The Pillars of the Kings.
One last recommendation.
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.
