Acceptance of mythology?

[Snowdog]

It seems in some Christian circles, the inclusion of such things as wizardry in stories causes a negative reaction (e.g. Harry Potter)

For what reason is the works of Tolkien seemingly more acceptable to Christians than the works of say CS Lewis or JK Rowling? Any thoughts?

[Theron Bugtussle]

I wasn't aware that LotR was more accepted in certain of those circles than CS Lewis (Narnia?) or Harry Potter. Explain?

[Carlas]

It really depends on who you're talking to. Many believe that both lotr and Harry Potter are 'evil', though lotr is more widely accepted. I think it has to do with a lot of the magic in Harry Potter being similar to black magic and witchcraft, which is shunned by many Christian circles (though I am no expert on religion).

[Finwe]

Lord of the Rings isn't as blatantly "magical" as Harry Potter. The latter contains descriptions of spells, potions, and overtly magical creatures in very generous amounts. In LotR, the magic is present in much more subtle way. When we think of Gandalf, we think of a noble, kindly, selfless advisor. When we think of Dumbledore, we think of a magician.

[Kransha]

I believe Finwe got that one as well as it can be gotten.

Yes, Gandalf and Saruman (LotR's premier wizards) do plenty of magic, they don't use magic at a constant rate, like the characters of Harry Potter who have some strange-sounding incantation for every occasion. Saruman has no magical lightning blasts that fly from his fingertips on command (well, not technically), he is a conniving old man with a lot if raw evil. Gandalf has used magic on many occasions, but he is more the loyal and noble friend and advisor, always with the right words and no-how.

C.S. Lewis, in my opinion, is widely accepted by Christianity as far as I knew. It is frowned upon slightly because of over-wrought Christ metaphors but is not rejected in any way by the Christians I know or know of. There is a lot of religious symbolism in those books, which causes the Narnia series to be studied by many varying faith Christians.

[zb]

I think it has to do with a lot of the magic in Harry Potter being similar to black magic and witchcraft

You're right, there are those who consider HP to be more blatantly witchcraft than LotR or Narnia (which is largely Xian allegory, yo). It's kinda funny, though, cos the Wiccans I've met would associate a lot more with lotr than hp. But that's a whole 'nother discussion. ;)

It may also be to do with the fact that CS Lewis was Christian, as was Tolkien, but Rowling is Agnositic/Atheist(?).

[Finwe]

I don't think it necessarily has to do with religion. Authors can write about different types of characters just for the sake of doing it. J.K. Rowling could still be religious and write about Harry Potter. What prevents her? Does being religious preclude one from having a fertile imagination? Absolutely not!

[Estel'sAngel]

Actually in an interview, I believe Rowling admitted to being a conservative Christian and that she holds no stock in magic. At least that's what I think I heard.

I actually love the fact that my Grandma enjoys LoTR and yet will not get near HP. She's very much against the slightest mention of magic. But like it's been said...LoTR has less obvious magic.

While a person's religion can have some bearing on their writing, I believe that it can be ignored. As Rowling is doing. It doesn't necissarily have to be about religion.

I'm going now..I'm beginning to repeat stuff!

[Hikaru]

As already said, both Tolkien and Lewis were dedicated Christians, so if there happen to be Christians out there who don't approve of their books...well, maybe the allegory is too subtle for their narrow minds.
As for Harry Potter, yes, the magick is much more theatrical and obvious. I'm a Witch myself actually, and you know what? Any Pagan will tell you that real magick isn't like that (although it would be sooooo much fun to be able to fly on brooms
and stick pig's tails on people we didn't like, wouldn't it?)
That's why they call it F-I-C-T-I-O-N, folks.
Harry Potter is a fun read so I say what the heck?
(not on a literary level with Narnia or LOTR but I still love them).

Anyone who bans books because of the author's alleged religious beliefs is missing out on a lot of fun.

[Alexus Varus]

(I have nothing against any religion of any kind, i just thought id say this now so i dont get flamed. Anything that has a positive belief for the 'bettering' of human lives is cool)

I suppose it's becuase LOTR is more Aloof than Harry Potter. And I too thought it was strange that the more heavily religious people dont mind reading LOTR, one of my best friends is deeply religious and yet she loved LOTR but when i mention HP she starts telling us how it is bad.

I have come to this conclusion; Lotr is seen as different becuase it is not set in the "here and now" but rather in a different place and time, where Harry Potter is set in out contempary world and seen as more a threat to the minds of the young in 'corrupting' them so to speak. LOTR is able to get away with it becuase it was set in the third age (going into 4th) and if it were now it would have been long over.

Besides, am i making this up or i seem to remember one of my other poeple at school when debating the bible in English Literature, said that revealations had magic and dragons and stuff in it? Am i making that up? I cant rightly remember.

But also, it may not just be christian, is there an Islamic point of view? After all the Koran and the Bilble are somewhat similar in their messages for humanity.

[silma]

I think that a lot of Christians read a very strong allegorical resemblance in LotR to their own beliefs i.e. the presence of a higher power, the use of choice and free will, the insidious nature of evil (temptation of the ring), the sacrifice of one to save many, the unconditional love, I could go on but it's too early in the morning to get in depth about this.
I personally feel that as Tolkien was writing LotR, the essence of his own faith came through into the book without him deliberately making the book into an allegorical tale.
In HP there is of course a fight against good and evil, but if there are Christian undertones , they are certainly not as obvious as in LotR.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

Eh... Talking of religion... The LOTR actually had a much more Norse and Greek Mythology feel about it than Christian. Then again, many Christian debate whether LOTR has witchcraft elements about it, with an emphasis especially on the Dark Powers, i.e. Necromancer, Witch-king of Angmar, Nazgul...

But many of them had missed the point that writing about evil stuff and living a life of sin are two entirely different things, just as talking about something and actually doing it are two different thing. I should not hope, however, that they would ban our younger generations from reading this exceptional piece of fantasy literature, the like of which has not appeared again in the world.

[Evisse the Blue]

Anyone who bans books because of the author's alleged religious beliefs is missing out on a lot of fun. I agree. There's no reason one cannot be both Christian and tolerant. But why some people who like LOTR are so set against HP remains a mystery to me.
This is surely not the only thread on the downs dealing with this issue, so I'll go look for its duplicate...
EDIT: My mistake, I didn't find an exact duplicate; carry on...

[Novlamothien]

I am one of these people in discussion, and my main reason is mostly what Carlas said. While LOTR has magic in it, the main characters rarely, in Gandalf's Case, and never, in everyone else's case, use that magic. HP's main characters use their magic much more often.
Of course, this is just my opinion, and you all are welcome to disagree.

[Firefoot]

I agree that it is becaue the magic used in LotR and Harry Potter are of a different sort. For examle, Galadriel's "For this is what your folk would call magic, I believe; though I do not understand clearly what they mean; and they seem to use the same word of the deceits of the Enemy." The magic in Harry Potter is much closer to what most people would call witch craft or black magic, even if it is not. The wizardry in LotR is much more conservative than it is in HP.

I am a Christian, and I have nothing against Harry Potter, though I have never felt any inclination to read the books or watch the movie. Many of my (Christian) friends have read the books and seen the movie. I think that as long as you take it for the fiction it is, it is fine.

Note: As I have not read the books I have tried not to say anything that is not true about them, and I am mostly going by what I have heard other people say.

As for C.S. Lewis, I think that The Chronicles of Narnia are generally accepted, and as Kransha pointed out, even studied.

[Imladris]

I am a Christian and though I have personnally never read the books, I have seen the first movie, seen previews for the other movies, seen clips from the second movie and I have read the first chapter from the fourth book. So I don't know whethere there is witchcraft or not in HP but this is what I don't like about it:

1. The people with magick have this I-am-better-than-you sort of thing with the muggles (?). Gandalf always treated everybody with respect and never viewed himself better than everybody else.

2. Magick isn't treated with respect. I personnally can not see Gandalf making a pig's tail grow out of somebody's behind that he didn't like. Neither can I imagine him holding a cake over a person's head and letting it drop on her head.

I think from a Christian's perspective, magick is a touchy thing and I think that, in their opinion, HP crosses the boundaries. In Tolkien, you will notice that anybody who can do magic, only does it in extreme circumstances, when their lives depended on it, such as Gandalf lighting his staff on Caradhras and Moria, the spell he used upon the door, and others. All these instances were used to save people's lives. On that note, I think that HP uses magic too flippantly. Brings to mind the Spiderman theme: With great power comes great responsibility.

Cheers!
Istawen

[Elianna]

First, I didn't know that Tolkien was more excepted than Lewis in Christian circles. Personally, I was introduced to The Chronicals of Narnia long before LotR.

Secondly, Alexus Varus:...revealations had magic and dragons and stuff in it... I just read through Revelation (note spelling) for any references to magic. I found 3 (and maybe a fourth):
Nor did they repent of their murders, their magic arts, their sexual immorality or their theifs. Rev. ch. 9, verse 21.
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murders, the sexually immoral, those who pratice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars- their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death. Rev. ch 21, verse 8.
Outside [the Holy City] are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murders, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. Rev. ch 22, verse 15
(Please remember though, if these people will ask forgiveness, God will give them salvation from the lake of sulfur and allow them into the Holy City.)
The possible fourth is a mention of "Satan's so-called deep secrets". Rev. ch 2, verse 24.
As for dragons:He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. Rev ch 20 verse 2
So you see: those things are mentioned in the Bible, but always with very bad connects.

Third, as for magic in LotR:

'Are these magic cloaks?' Pippin asked, looking at them with wonder. 'I do not know what you mean by that,' answered the leader of the Elves. 'They are fair graments, and the web is good, for it was made in this land...You are indeed high in favor of the Lady! For she herself and her maidens wove this stuff...'

From this I gather that all that was called 'magic' by the Hobbits (who recorded the WR in the Red Book, which became LotR) was actually only things that they couldn't understand. Think about it: Who had the magical powers? The Istari, who were Maiar sent by Manwë. Of course angels are going to have powers that Hobbits can't understand. The Elves, some of whom had lived with the Valar and were closer to them and had a far better understanding of nature and science, were also counted as magical.
I think Firefoot's quote is better at making this point than my quote.

Fourth, as for Harry Potter:
I don't understand why there's so much contraversy about a colonel on M*A*S*H. ;)
Actually, my mommy read the first one when they first started coming out and told me not to read them, so I can't say much about HP. The reasons she gave me for why not to read them, beside the sorcery, were basically because even the good guys lie, cheat, and steal (for something like that). So it's not just the witchcraft that we Christians don't like.

And besides all that, Tolkien said himself "God is the Lord, of angels, and of men- and of elves." Has Rowling ever said anything like that for Harry? I somehow doubt it.

Sorry to be long-winded.

[Evisse the Blue]

Imladris, as I have read the HP books I can inform you there are rules and restrictions concerning magic in Harry's world, nor is it not used 'flippantly', at least not by the positive characters. I would argue this at more length were we not on a LOTR board and not on a HP one.
Has Rowling ever said anything like that for Harry? I somehow doubt it. Has Homer said anything like this for Illiad? Or, if you think the comparison is too far fetched, has Peter Beagle said anything like this about the Schmendrick and his Unicorn? Before someone takes this the wrong way, I am a Christian Orthodox, and as such very unlikely to take religious issues lightly. But I also am one to draw very clear boundaries between fiction and reality, and therefore no such issues will ever come between me and a good read.

Bringing the discussion back to acceptance of some fantasy works and rejection of others, I think the comments of AS Byatt, (English writer, author of Posession, Babbletower) are relevant to this thread:
(...) fantasy novels by the likes of Susan Cooper, Alan Garner and Ursula K Le Guin contained "a real sense of mystery, powerful forces, dangerous creatures in dark forests".

"Ms Rowling's magic wood has nothing in common with these lost worlds. It is small, and on the school grounds, and dangerous only because she says it is,"

"Ms Rowling, I think, speaks to an adult generation that hasn't known, and doesn't care about, mystery.

"They are inhabitants of urban jungles, not of the real wild. They don't have the skills to tell ersatz magic from the real thing, for as children they daily invested the ersatz with what imagination they had."

"There is nothing wrong with Harry Potter"

"But it has little to do with the shiver of awe we feel looking through Keats's 'magic casements, opening on the foam/Of perilous seas, in faery lands forlorn.'"

Needless to say, all the Potter fanatics called her a snob. Even if I am somewhat a HP fan, I read and enjoyed the books (and the movies), I have to agree with her constructive criticism of it. The sense of mystery and wonder one gets when reading Lord of the Rings is all lost on HP.

[Lush]

First of all, A.S. Byatt strikes me a tad hypocritical when she talks about the notions of "the real wild," because her writing, her biography, as well as her interviews reflected neither an aesthetic nor a practical understanding of what "wild" is all about.

Second of all, A.S. Byatt seems bitter as heck, because while J.K. Rowling is earning millions (for better or for worse), Byatt is stuck having one of her novels adapted into a middle-of-the-road feature film, one which even Gwyneth Paltrow's "golden hair" cannot save from almost immediate obscurity. Byatt's problem is that she's middle-of-the-road; in some circles, that is even worse than hella bad.

Third of all, in response to Imladris' statement that: The people with magick have this I-am-better-than-you sort of thing with the muggles (?). Gandalf always treated everybody with respect and never viewed himself better than everybody else.

Actually, if you've read and re-read all of the books that are out so far, which I have, you will note that Rowling treats the sort of attitude that you're describing above as both dangerous and dumb. Draco Malfoy & his family are especially ridiculed by the author as being a bunch of prejudiced jerks.

Finally, to answer the original question this thread put forth, I also think that a lot of the self-righteous brouhaha sourrinding Harry Potter stems from the fact that the books are specifically targeted at children. Nobody trusts children to formulate their own opinion. Sometimes with good reason. But anyway, that, I think, is what can a huge chunk of outrage be appropriated to.

[Finwe]

It isn't just a Christian reaction. All religions have their fanatics and fundamentalists. Often, people feel threatened by belief systems that appear to be more lax by theirs. I know some Indians here in the United States who are more "traditional" than Indians in India. Why, you ask? Their parents felt threatened by this new belief system that would affect and "corrupt" their children, so they instilled more traditional values in their children. They are barely allowed to do things that American teenagers would take for granted (i.e. hanging out with friends, dating, etc.). The same can be applied for religion. If you are not completely secure in your beliefs, you will feel threatened by every little piece of literature that describes a belief system different than your own. This, in turn, makes you want to "strike out" against that piece of literature and belief system, and prevent it from circulating. That is why so many people want to ban Harry Potter and other "magical" books. They are threatened by them.

[Imladris]

I am sorry if I offended anybody with my statements about HP. I did say that I did not read the books and that everything which I said was what I had seen/heard. From my own observations, those were the conclusions I had come up with. What I said about the muggles and stuff was the attitude I saw in the first movie and in news reports, etc.

Finally, to answer the original question this thread put forth, I also think that a lot of the self-righteous brouhaha sourrinding Harry Potter stems from the fact that the books are specifically targeted at children. Nobody trusts children to formulate their own opinion.

I disagree with that statement. The Chronicles of Narnia are aimed at children and they are widely accepted by Christians (I have yet to hear a Christian not like them).

Finwe hit it on the head: black magic and witchcraft to the Christian are evil. So why would they accept a book that might support that idea? I am not saying that HP has witchcraft in it, because I honestly don't know. But that Christian view would explain why some are leery in reading/accepting magical books.

Tolkien, clearly, does not have black magic in it and that is why Christians (well, most Christians) accept them.

[Finwe]

The thing is, I know plenty of die-hard Christians who love Harry Potter. They realize that there is witchcraft, but they know the reason why there is witchcraft. The books don't promote it. They show that it can be used for good. That is the important lesson that we have to walk away with. The same applies to LotR. There are plenty of forces in Middle-earth that could be used for both good and evil. That is the ultimate lesson that we have to remember. Some people can't see that. All they see is the "black magic" and "witchcraft," without seeing the higher purpose.

[The Saucepan Man]

I have come across (and participated in) before arguments on this board concerning the so-called "Un-Christian" values of Harry Potter. The arguments have been pretty well summarised so far on this thread. Ultimately, they boil down to these books' portrayal of witchcraft and the way in which the protagonists are said to "bend the rules" to acheive their (unarguably good) ends.

Now, I have have no particular candle to burn for HP. I have not read the books, although I have seen the films. Then again, I intensely dislike any form of censorship, save where necessary.

It seems to me that the reason that LotR is generally admired among the Christian community, whereas HP has many detractors, is because Tolkien is known to have been writing from a Christian (albeit Catholic) standpoint, and his book enshrines many Christian values.

Yet, when I look at what I know about the HP books, I find that they are generally espousing the same values, even though the writer may not be devoutly religious herself. For me, if you are going to damn one, then you should damn the other for the same reasons. However Tolkien may have portrayed magic, it is magic nevertheless. It may comprise a "power", or some advanced technology, known only to the Elves and the higher beings, but who is to say that the magic used by HP and his chums is not of the same ilk? And Tolkien's characters sometimes acted against traditional patterns, to heroic ends. Bilbo, for example, acted in a way which seems extraordinary to the majority of his fellow Hobbits, and was considered strange in consequence. Yet, we would not condemn him for what he did, and what he achieved.

So, if we are banning HP, should we not be banning LotR too? Mind you, as I understand it, LotR is banned in some communities and schools. I am sure that most, if not all, people here will (like me) find that ridiculous. Just like it was ridiculous for the more extreme proponents of Islam to hand down a death sentence on the author of Midnight's Children. And yet, by the same token, surely it is just as ridiculous to think of banning HP, or to reject it as somehow being dangerous to one's own pattern of faith.

[The Mushroom]

Er... I think that the two magics are different. The power that the Istari had and occasionally used was God-given, rather like God giving the apostles the power to preform miracles in the new testament. However there are also sorcerers mentioned in the new testament that have certain powers that do not come from God and are condemned by Him. As for HP, well... the magic used there is of the latter type. Oh dear, I'm not making my point very well. I know my explanation here is rather unclear and full of holes but I really don't have the gift of explaining myself well. Sorry.:( I would like to mention though that I have read the books and I enjoyed them (although I didn't like everything in them). I also have many other Christian friends who enjoy these books very much, so not all Christians are against them. Many think it's purely a matter of what's going to hurt their spiritual walk and if God would mind them reading it. It has nothing to do with narrow-mindedness or the religion of the author (at least not with the Christians I know). Please respect those who choose not to read them. I consider it a courageous decision to follow what you believe in, despite pressure from peers and society.

[Cibbwin]

I think one part of it is subtlety. In Harry Potter, there are potions and wands and magic words. In LoTR, the magic is much more... organic. There is no flashy display of colours or something, it just... happens.

[Sharkû]

Please bear in mind that there's two things we're not: a Potter board, and a bible discussion board.

That being said,I believe we have to make an important differentiation when it comes to "magic" in the Legendarium.
On one side, we would have _morgul_, 'sorcery'. This is practiced by Melkor and his followers: Sauron the Necromancer prominently among them, but also mortals such as the Mouth of Sauron if I recall correctly. This magic, though ultimately part of the creation and adding to the Grand Design just like everything Melkor ever did, springs from the great primeval sin of defying Eru and his creation. Therefore, it is inherently bad. This hardly poses a conflict to a Christian conception.

The other side would actually be wisdom and skill rather than actual magic, let alone sorcery -- the Q. term would be _nole_. That certain aspects of the Quendi might seem magical but are actually just supreme skill or applied knowledge is established.
What this _knowledge_ exactly is can be answered easily: insight into the ways of the world, gained from being close to the creator and the Ainur as opposed acting against them. Gandalf's magic has its source in his special nature as one present at creation, and arguably being faithful to it. That something like this can exist - in a fictional world on top of that - is hardly a-christian either.

What the actual difference between the two kinds of "magic" is more difficult to say. Perhaps one has its source in Melkor's dischord solely.

[The Mushroom]

Please bear in mind that there's two things we're not: a Potter board, and a bible discussion board.
Sorry about that. :( I only wanted to show it from a Christian perspective (which I did very poorly).

[Lush]

Actually, 'Shroom, your response was more on target than mine, so save that sad face for a rainy day. ;)

I'm Christian, but I don't like relating things to people "from a Christian perspective," because we're not a homogenous group and the spectrum of opinion on certain matters, especially literature, can stretch quite wide.

I can, however, speak more freely from the perspective of a person that has devoted her life to studying literature (until I go completely bonkers and join the circus, that is); from a literary perspective, I would argue that the people that want to ban Harry Potter, yet at the same time profess to enjoy the LOTR are failing to read between the lines a bit.

Sharkey has made a number of important observations regarding the way magic is treated in Tolkien's works. The fact that a more traditional definition of magic is usually attributed to the actions of the bad guys (i.e. Melkor & Co) is not to be taken lightly; then again, there are several examples of what I would argue to be magic used in more ambigious terms. In this category I would place the Girdle of Melian, Luthien's ability to escape from her wooden prison by making her hair grow long and weaving out of it a robe that was "laden with a spell of sleep," and, for another example, the fact that Galadriel was able to stop time with the power of her ring.

Now, this is different from what goes on in Harry Potter, but not radically so. The magic J.K. Rowling writes about is more "pedestrian" and often light-hearted, but the underlying theme, I would argue, is just as serious as that of Tolkien's Legendarium, and it uses many of the same elements.

[HerenIstarion]

by Sharku

That certain aspects of the Quendi might seem magical but are actually just supreme skill or applied knowledge is established.


or, to put it thus:

by Arthur C. Clarke

any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

To back sharku up there :)

On the other hand it may be argued that Melkor & Co were technological types, but the point I'm driving at, the sin comes from abuse of faculty, not its proper use.

There was a good thread on the subject:

Magic in ME (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2341&highlight=Magic+in+ME)

[The Saucepan Man]

Many think it's purely a matter of what's going to hurt their spiritual walk and if God would mind them reading it. It has nothing to do with narrow-mindedness or the religion of the author (at least not with the Christians I know). Please respect those who choose not to read them. I consider it a courageous decision to follow what you believe in, despite pressure from peers and society. Ah, I meant no offence, Mushroom, and I apologise if I caused any. I have no problem with anyone who takes a personal decision not to read a particular book – for whatever reason. My problem is with those who seek to ban others from reading books on religious or political grounds.

Surely, most (if not all) here would agree that it makes little sense to ban LotR on religious grounds. And yet many find it acceptable for HP to be banned on the basis of its portrayal of witchcraft. My point is that any distinction between LotR and HP, in terms of the manner in which each portrays the concept of magic, is, in my view, artificial and can only be explicable by reference to the fact that one was written by a devout Catholic and is set in a monotheistic world (although one very different from our own), while the other was written by an Agnostic (I presume) and set in a world in which religion does not feature (at least prominently). I am with Lush in saying that there is, in substance, little difference in the concept of magic in the two books.

I take your point, Sharku, that there is a distinction to be made in Tolkien’s works between the sorcery practised by Morgoth and his followers and the higher wisdom and skill exhibited by the Elves and Ainur. I agree that the latter can be explained as “sufficiently advanced technology”. But can that not apply to “Mogul sorcery” too? After all, both forms of “magic” are ultimately derived from the same source, namely Eru. So, to my mind, the distinction arises from the way it is used, rather than its source. The “magic” of the Elves is (generally) used to good purpose, whereas the sorcery of Morgoth’s followers is used to further their evil ends.

To my mind, exactly the same points could be made to explain the concept of magic in HP. Magic in HP’s world might also simply be the application of a higher technology that “muggles” are not sufficiently advanced to apply themselves. And, like magic in Middle-earth, it too can be used either for good or for evil. The only difference of real substance is that (as far as I am aware), there is no Supreme Being in the HP books from whom all this power is ultimately derived. Is this the reason for it finding greater disfavour amongst Christian groups than LotR? Perhaps, but surely the same reasoning would apply even if there were no witchcraft in the book. The characters have physical power, and yet such physical power is not said to derive from any Supreme Being. Indeed, any book which did not attribute the qualities shown by its characters to a Christian-like God would be “Un-Christian” on that basis. But that is clearly not the reality.

And so, getting back to the original question posed by Snowdog, I can see the justification given for LotR having greater acceptance amongst Christians than the HP books. I just have a hard time accepting the logic of that justification.

I hope that explains my position more clearly.
:smokin:

[Iaurhirwen]

I believe that one of the main reasons that Harry Potter is getting targeted as much is that is directed to children. Some people believe that if children read Harry Potter, it will corrupt them and divert them away from Christian values. Because magick and sorcery are strongly connected to the Devil, these people who oppose Harry Potter don’t want their children to become associated with the Devil through magick.

Some may argue that The Chronicles of Narnia were aimed at children too, and they were. But the aspect that causes Harry Potter to be attacked on such a large scale is because of the immense popularity of the books. There is hardly a child in this world who has never heard of Harry Potter, while The Chronicles of Narnia, while an outstanding series and piece of literature, they simply don’t have the immense popularity that Harry Potter commands.

Because LOTR is not directed at people as young as the main readers of Harry Potter, it is not seen as much of a problem. My thoughts are that because the readers of LOTR are older, these Christians that have a problem with Harry Potter do not think that they will be corrupted. They would be already settled into their faith and that a book could not influence them as much as it would an impressionable child.

I have been raised in the Roman Catholic Church and have no problem what-so-ever with the Harry Potter books. I have read them many times and simply enjoy the stories that they offer. Some time ago, when this topic was highly volatile in the United States, a priest at my church was asked to quote on the topic for the local paper. He stated that, “the connection of Harry Potter to the Devil is simply hogwash”. He didn’t believe and nor do I that this series is corruptive.

It is also something to note that the Pope in Rome, John Paul II, said that Harry Potter books do not promote the Devil and that they do promote good Christian values.

Personally, I don't find anything wrong with magick in any way or form. If someone does, however, that is their business and I respect them for sticking with their ideals.

[Snowdog]

This thread topic got quite a bit of play! I am just now reading all the fine input posted here. Basicly this question was asked on another website, but with a much more verbose lead in. It wasn't three posts before the author and I were into it. because I was as verbose with a different, and somewhat opposing point of view though i agreed with him on much of it. I basicly cut out the BS and posted the basic question here.

It has been my Christian experience, especially back in the 80s that all magic should be opposed. This included Gandalf in The Hobbit as well as other books. There used to be these big gatheringsd where people would burn their 'satanic' books and records and tapes, and it really left a sour taste in my mouth. Even though some of Tolkien's books went into these fires, he is basicly more accepted in Christian circles these days even though there are some fanatics out there who believe th Christians who buy and read Tolkien have compromised their faith.

Personally I believe that each individual is free to decide these things on their own merit, and should not say what is right or not for others.

Thanks for all the good responses here!

[The Mushroom]

Phew! It's hard to fight against your intellect, Saucepan Man! But I do have afew comments.
After all, both forms of "magic" are ultimately derived from the same source, namely Eru.
Hmmm... that's true to a certain extent. But, after Melkor fell his powers became simply a corrupt and evil form of the power Eru meant him to have. He marred Arda, brought about orcs and other monsters, and went about killling and destroying. The power that Eru had given him as a Vala was corrupted, becoming more of an opposite to the powers of the other Valar. Melkor is the source of all corruption and any powers that come from him are corrupt (Morgul sorcery, etc.). So, I would say that the immediate source of the power being used (despite the fact that Eru is the ultimate source of everything) is the major difference between the two magics of Middle Earth. Christians accept it because it really doesn't differ much from our way of thinking.
In Harry Potter, no, God is never mentioned by name. But since the story is supposed to take place in our world Christians assume that He would be there. There are also things in the books which imply a Christian religion exists, like the celebration of Christmas. So it could be argued that HP too is set in a monotheistic world, and one that completely disregards God and His commandments.
The witchcraft used in the books fits the bill perfectly of something that would be condemned by God. (a) It does not have its source in God (b) it is given the name of witchcraft, which is clearly condemned in the Bible (c) It is often used to a sinful purpose.
That's the best I can do in regards to why many Christians don't read HP, and how it is different from LOTR. I hope it all made sense.


:) Fungus

[The Saucepan Man]

It's hard to fight against your intellect, Saucepan Man! Then don't. ;) :D

We are, I think, more or less in agreement on the depiction of magic in LotR, Fungus. While, ultimately, the ability to use "magical" power does derive from Eru, I agree that "Morgul sorcery" represents a corruption of such power, by virtue of it having been channelled through Morgoth (whom Eru created).

I take your point about the implied presence of Chrisitianity in HP, although it does not follow that a Christian God actually exists in HP's world. But, assuming that He does, why should "magical" power be any more or less acceptable than it is in LotR?

(a) It does not have its source in God Why not? In a world where humans were created by God, and where some humans have the power to use magic, then surely He created them with that power.

(b) it is given the name of witchcraft, which is clearly condemned in the Bible A rose by any other name ...

(c) It is often used to a sinful purpose So is "magic" in LotR. A you say, "Morgul sorcery" represents a corruption by Morgoth of power bestowed by Eru. In the same way, can the use of magic for evil purposes in HP not represent a corruption (by a "Fallen Angel" originally created by God) of power bestowed by God? The use of magic for good purposes, on the other hand, should be acceptable since it is furthering His will.

Do you see my point? If HP does take place in a monotheistic world, like Middle-earth, then one can view magic in the same way in both worlds. If it does not, then none of the powers exercised, whether magical or not, derive from God and so the use of "witchcraft" in HP's world should be no more (and no less) objectionable than any other action in that world.

[The Mushroom]

Then don't.
Hehehe! Fat chance! ;) :D

Alright, we're looking at both books as if they exist in a monotheistic world. That is how Christians view it. As for why LOTR magic is different from HP magic, I'll take it back to my abc's...

(a) It does not have its source in God.
Why not? In a world where humans were created by God, and where some humans have the power to use magic, then surely He created them with that power.
Well, He created human beings with free will. Just because humans have the ability to do something doesn't mean that they should do it or that God would want them to do it. He created humans with free will because if we can't choose disobedience then we can't really choose obedience. But this isn't supposed to be a theological discussion so I'll break off there.
As far as LOTR goes, the powers used for good come from Eru, and the powers used for evil come from Morgoth. But we agreed on that already.
As far as HP goes, all of the magic used seems to come from the same source. The question is where does it come from.
(b) It is given the name of witchcraft, which is clearly condemned in the Bible.
A rose by any other name...
Not exactly. I looked up the word "witchcraft" in the dictionary and the definition there was the art or practices of a witch; sorcery. so I looked up "sorcery." The definition there was the practices of a person who is thought to have supernatural powers granted by evil spirits And there we find our source. Evil spirits. Demons. Servants of Satan. If we're judging the magic in the two books by the same criteria, then we should consider this magic evil, just as we consider Morgul sorcery evil.
(c) It is often used to a sinful purpose.
So is "magic" in LotR.
Only by the evils of Middle Earth who get their power from Morgoth. Those who get their power from Eru use it for good. The problem is, as I said above, that all magical power in HP comes from the same source and that source is Satan. That would make the magic in HP evil. Sure, they may use it to acheive good ends sometimes, but witchcraft, even "used for good," is still condemned. Disobedience, even if it's whitewashed, will no more "further His will" then disobedience as black as the abyss.

So there ya have it, folks. :)
Mushie

[HerenIstarion]

now we don't :)

HP comes from the same source

I think you make a mistake there, as to drawing in the outer sources in the case of HP to decide the origins of magic inside it. As a piece of literature, it is somehow closed on itself, therefore, inside its boundaries, one must rely on what is stated in it. Now, it is not said in it that all witches of HP performed some rites to draw their power from Enemy


On the other hand, what is said in it. and as far as the HP story goes is never unsaid, the magical powers of non-muggles in HP are not supernatural to the extent that those are not drawn outside of nature, but are something people are born with, as natural good sight, or musical talent. There is no free will involved in becoming a wizard for Harry Potter, he is natural born one. As this is concept, than common principles come in. As one can use his/her cleverness to good or bad ends, so one can use one's magical abilities.

People you looked up in a dictionary were quite ordinary men and women, who became sorceres and witches as a consequence of act of choosing

Which moves HP magic onto the same plane as ME one is - natural gift of Creator, used, according to choices performed with the free will, to be in accordance with His will or to disobey him

[Lush]

Those who get their power from Eru use it for good.

Not neccessarily, darling. Galadriel's motivation was ambiguous and she didn't redeem herself for a long time. Fëanor screwed up his great potential and plunged his own kind into darkness and despair. Shall I even get into Turgon and how his pride caused the demise of his people?

All of the above, characters, I would argue, received their gifts from Eru.

See, it's not as black and white as your above statement would have me believe.

[Theron Bugtussle]

Originally posted by Lush
Not neccessarily, darling. Galadriel's motivation was ambiguous...Fëanor screwed up his great potential and plunged his own kind into darkness and despair. ...Turgon...All of the above, characters, I would argue, received their gifts from Eru.

See, it's not as black and white as your above statement would have me believe. Lush, darling ;) , I think you're being too picky with The Shroom.

Morgoth should be the prime example. He started off WHITE: good/perfect/obedient to Eru and his revealed will. Morgoth got his power/abilities directly from Eru in the beginning. He had a free will though, and as the Initial and Master Corrupter, violated Eru's desires/intention/boundaries/will. BLACKening himself, if you will.

So the initial corruption pattern was established. Other corruptions (working of evil=BLACK) follow the pattern that is established. Subsequent actions taken by those beings who take their power/instructions/cues from Morgoth are using the wrong source for the wrong goals. Is that part "black and white?"

Other beings who take their power/instructions/cues instead from Eru (or indirectly from others who are acting obediently directly in relation to Eru) are using the right source for the right goals. As best as they see fit. And respectful that they have a Master to be accountable to. However, being agents of free will, at any time, one of them (Fëanor, Saruman) can choose to violate the express will of Eru (as best they know it--I am not quibbling over this particular point).

So in my opinion, it is fairly much black and white. With the caveat that you don't look at a person at any snapshot of time and say, they are WHITE without any chance of exercising free will and BLACKening themselves into the enemy's camp.

[The Mushroom]

Thanks Theron Bugtussle!:)

HerenIstarion, you're probably right. Now I think I'll have to drop my original argument.
The main point of my original argument was that the magic in HP comes from the Devil, but yes, it is stated in the HP books that being a wizard is an inate characteristic, not a choice (although the witches and wizards do go to school to enhance their powers). If we look at that statement as we were looking at it previously (that HP is set in our modern day world in which God exists) we hit a discrepancy. Why would God create a being who had no free will to choose against a sin which He clearly condemns (for the Bible would certainly exist in HP if it was set in our modern day world in which God exists)? God could not do such a thing since it is completely against his character. Therefore it would be logical to conclude that God and the Devil do not exist in HP's world, so HP characters could not draw their powers from either of them. HP would have its own world, with its own rules created by Rowling. If looked at from this perspective, the only problem Christians might possibly have with the books themselves is that they come from an Atheistic world view.
My origianal argument is one easily made, and commonly held by Christians. Perhaps it is not a good argument. But I still think that Christians' rejection of HP (while accepting LotR) is perfectly justified by other reasons.
LotR has an obviosly Christian world view and there isn't really anything we disagree with. The Professor himself said
With regard to the Lord of the Rings... I actually intended it to be consonant with Christian thought and belief, which is asserted elsewhere.
As I said above, HP could be considered to take place in its own world with different rules from ours, but its magic does have a strong resemblance to occultic practices (though it may not mirror them exactly). There's astrology, divination, spell-casting, and a whole lot more occultic resemblances that are similar to our world's witchcraft (which Christians believe to be evil, as I have said before). These occultic resemblances are made to look fun and appealing, and the books are geared toward young children who don't know any better. Check out these real-life quotes taken out of Richard Abanes' book "Harry Potter and the Bible" (yup, I've started researching about this.);)
I like what they learned there and I want to be a witch (Gioia Bishop, 10 years old)
This book is amazing and contains magic spells I wish I can do in the real world. (Wang Wen, 12 years old)
This book made me want to go to Hogwarts. Hogwarts is a school for teaching magic. I would like to learn magic, but I haven't got my letter of invitation yet. (amazon.co.uk post, age unknown)
Where do you think these kids might turn when they find out Hogwarts doesn't exist? Where will they go to satisfy their desire to perform magic like Harry and co.? HP has a dangerous potential to draw kids into real-life occultic practices. Christians are against that.
But remember, not all Christians see a problem with Harry, and not all Christians agree with me either.

So there's my revised edition, folks. :D

The 'Shroom

[warrenerd]

first of all, i don't agree with you about christians hating the chronicles of narnia. don't you see the similarities between the chronicles and christian history?
and to answer your question, the magic in lotr comes from sources of "good", or, as christians see it, god, as opposed to in HP the magic comes from an unknown, sketchy source. the magic in HP can be used for good or evil. but in lotr, "good" magic can only be used for good, and "evil" magic can only be used for bad. eg: the ring of power.

but that's only my perception.

[HerenIstarion]

Why would God create a being who had no free will to choose against a sin which He clearly condemns

You are mixing fiction with the world as we know it again. As you yourself give a definition up there, sin condemned is power coveted and got from supernatural being on the evil side to God. Being good at chopping wood, or writing poems, is natural ability and gift of God. Inside HP story, being good at magic is of the same rank.

HP could be considered to take place in its own world with different rules from ours

That’s the point

Where do you think these kids might turn when they find out Hogwarts doesn't exist? Where will they go to satisfy their desire to perform magic like Harry and co.?

One can not tell (in any particular case), but one is inclined to think they will grow up as normal as the next man, yet with richer imagination and more to remember than the said next man who haven’t got read HP stories (or other stories thought by adults as “endangering”). Haven’t you be playing cowboys after watching some Western movie, or pretending to be a knight after reading through Scott? When I was a kid, I was constantly imagining myself inside ME, being 10th of the Fellowship, running to and fro with a sword (Not real one, alas, could not have afforded one). Now I don’t claim perfect normality (what with all the chaps out there thinking me a geek ;)), but I don’t think it came in somehow as damaging to my soul. The point is, evaluation of using magical (and any other) abilities in the books is in the right place – to be brave is good, to be treacherous is bad, etc etc.

Only way HP can lead a child to the occult is once it is banned, for than it will be much more attractive (ah, how sweet the forbidden fruit is?). As in any other field, it is adults correct/incorrect behavior with regards of anything that may bring damage to a child

And, after all, the child is as much human as an adult, and the problem of choice is set before it as well as before any adult. There is no real living for the over protected, I can’t help thinking. The thing you fear, as far as I am to judge, is that HP readers will actually mix up fiction and reality and believe that magic is to be found in our world, and start finding it out and become witches and sorcerers as described by Merriam_Webster (or was it Oxford?) dictionary. But, without correct reaction of its tutors, it may be led to believe there are really green men on Mars, or, as the films assure us, that one can always get away with it if daring enough to rob a bank.

But is it not written:

I suspect that belief and appetite for marvels are here regarded as identical or as closely related. They are radically different…

Children are capable, of course, of literary belief, when the story-maker’s are is good enough to produce it. That state of mind has been called “willing suspension of disbelief”… [but] what really happens is that the story maker proves a successful “sub-creator”. He makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it, what he relates is “true”: it accords with the laws of that world…”is it true” is the great question children ask… but the question is hardly an evidence of “unblunted belief”, or even of the desire for it

Which, of course, implies that if there is a “willing suspension” of something, once it is removed, the something remains.

a bit sliced quotes from Tolkien’s On Fairy-Stories, to be found in The Tolkien Reader. (My edition Ballantine Books ISBN 0-345-34506-1, ask for it and you’ll get a good read on it)

[Lush]

Theron, perhaps you mis-read my post? I was talking about the fact that a number of Tolkien's characters mis-used their Eru-given powers. Mushroom's original statement was taking the opposite viewpoint.

Where do you think these kids might turn when they find out Hogwarts doesn't exist? Where will they go to satisfy their desire to perform magic like Harry and co.? HP has a dangerous potential to draw kids into real-life occultic practices. Christians are against that.

Yes, and Lady Chatterley's Lover was going to lead young girls everywhere straight to hell, with a quick layover in a brothel on the way.

I think the problem with your assessment of the potential dangers of Harry Potter lies within both the supposed nature of children as "innocents" that soak up different ideologies like sponges, rather than young human beings (and, as a Christian, I believe that no human being is innocent) that absorb information through the prism of their own intelligence. The latter view does not neccessarily imply that art introduced at an inappropriate time cannot harm the child (I couldn't imagine, for example, taking my 8-year old brother to a screening of Bertolucci's "The Dreamers" and then expect him not to be scarred for life), but that age-appropriate materials often have curious ways of being incorporated into a child's view of the world.

Furthermore, there is the nature of art to deal with. Eminem famously asked: "They say music can alter moods and talk to you/ Well can it load a gun up for you and c0ck it too?" His answer, while not clearing up any potential ambiguity, points out the obtuse nature of the argument, "Well if it can, next time you assault a dude/Just tell the judge it was my fault, and I'll get sued."

but one is inclined to think they will grow up as normal as the next man, yet with richer imagination and more to remember than the said next man who haven’t got read HP stories (or other stories thought by adults as “endangering”).

And then there's Heren's excellent point to consider. In his critiqe of Harry Potter, Harold Bloom gruffly wrote that "art should enrich us." His argument was that HP did just the oppsosite of that. Leaving Bloom to soak in his own intellectual superiority (for now), I would argue that HP nicely accomplishes just that.

[The Mushroom]

HerenIstarion, I do not think I am mixing fiction and reality anymore. You say that Harry's abilities are a gift from God. That, I think, gets a little closer to mixing then what I was trying to say. :)
Of course imagination is a wonderful thing. But there is a distinction between healthy, imaginative play (cowboy, knight, hobbit, etc.), and play involving the occult. A witch is a decidedly un-Christian person. Playing witch is not the same as becoming one of course, but all the same it is a decidedly un-Godly game.
One way HP can lead a child to the occult is once it is banned
If you are saying that HP is only appealing to children if it is banned then I disagree.;)
And, after all, a child is as much human as an adult, and the problem of choice is set before it as well as any adult. [children] absorb information through the prism of their own inteligence.
Yes, kids are little human beings. They have a soul and a mind just like you and I do, but their mind is still developing its own thought and ideals. They look to parents/teachers/friends/TV/books to build their views of the world. When many of these people/things support occultism then their view of it will likely turn out positive; the first step to becoming involved in occultic practices.
Looking at the quotes from the children that were in my last post, I do not think they are harboring some sort of "willing suspension of disbelief." I think that they are actually trying to merge the world of HP and our own world; wishing to produce magic in our own world.
Lush, I really don't find HP particularly enriching, but I guess that it's a matter of opinion.;)
They say music can alter moods and talk to you/ Well can it load a gun up for you and cock it too?
The decision to become a witch always belongs to the chooser alone. My point is that HP can make that decision easier.

Well, I really didn't intend to become so involved in this thread.
This discussion seems to be turning into a "does not" "does to" sorta thing, and I don't think we are ever going to agree. My original intent in posting on this thread was not to change any minds, but to make the Christian view of HP opposition more clear for y'all, to the best of my ability. I really don't think that there is much else to say. I'll be seing y'all around the forums, but it's time for me to leave this thread alone.

Mushie

[The Saucepan Man]

Yeah, what HerenIstarion and Lush said. :cool:

(How's that for intellectual argument. :rolleyes: )

Just to sum up. If a Christian God exists in HP's world, then HP's magical powers are derived from him and it cannot therefore be sinful to use them in the pursuit of good (just as in Middle-earth). If, on the other hand, a Christian God does not exist in HP's world then neither does Satan and therefore HP's powers cannot be satanic.

And so we come to the question of whether HP can be condemned on the basis that it might seduce children into satanic practices. I am convinced that it holds no such danger, for the reasons that HerenIstanion has given. Admittedly, it might engender an interest in mysticism and occultism. But these in themselves are not evil, nor will they cause someone who takes an interest in them to become evil. Someone who is predisposed towards wrongful behaviour might try to use them for malicious ends. But then they would have pursued such ends whether they had an interest in the occult or not. This comes back to my point that it is not the knowledge in itself that is good or evil, but the end to which you put it.

In my youth, having read LotR, I subsequently became interested in the RPG Dungeons & Dragons (itself condemned in some quarters as satanic). And thereafter, I became interested in the occult. But I never became a satanist. And I like to think that I have a pretty christian (small 'c') outlook on life. Maybe I would have developed those interests without having read LotR, but it definately sparked these things off for me. Which is why I believe that you cannot condemn HP without also condemning LotR, and indeed any form of art which involves magic (in the loose sense of the word) and mythical creatures. And I firmly believe that there is no call to condemn any of these things.

A few additional comments:

I looked up a few words in my Concise Oxford English Dictionary:

witchcraft n. the use of magic; sorcery.

sorceror n. (fem sorceress) a person who claims to use magic powers; a magician or wizard. sorcerous adj. sorcery n.

wizard n. 1 a sorceror; a magician. 2 a person of remarkable powers, a genius. 3 a conjurer.

magician n. 1 a person skilled in or practising magic. 2 a conjuror. 3 a person with exceptional skill.

magic n. 1 the supposed art of influencing the course of events by the occult control of nature or the spirits. 2 conjuring tricks. 3 an inexplicable or remarkable influence producing surprising results. 4 an enchanting quality or phenomenon.

No mention of evil. The definition depends upon the standpoint of the source.

And Theron, you are right that things are relatively "black and white" in Tolkien's works. Those that act evilly are acting under Morgoth's influence. And, in doing so, they may derive their immediate power from Morgoth, but his power was originally derived from Eru. So all power in Middle-earth is ultimately sourced from Eru. As I have said, it is, in my view, the use to which that power is put that defines whether a character is good or evil (at any given time), not the power itself.

[HerenIstarion]

My original intent in posting on this thread was not to change any minds, but to make the Christian view of HP opposition more clear for y'all

For which we are thankful. The whole point of having the discussion board is discussion, after all :). And sometimes minds may change (not in this particular case, though). So, welcome to the BD, Mushroom, and see you around. Good postings to you!

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I'd like to remind all participants in this discussion that posts on this board are expected to be related to Tolkien and his works. While the topic may be comparative, it should not go off on an unrelated tangent for any length of time.

[Theron Bugtussle]

Originally posted by Lush
Theron, perhaps you mis-read my post? I was talking about the fact that a number of Tolkien's characters mis-used their Eru-given powers. Mushroom's original statement was taking the opposite viewpoint. Yeah, I think I was not so clear in what I was responding to in your response to Mushroom. My point is more or less along these lines:

0) Eru - original source of all authority and ability.

1) Morgoth or anyone else (Valar, Maiar, Elves, Men, etc.) receiving a gift of authority or ability from Eru, the prime creator, has the free will to do evil with it, corrupting themselves to some degree, depending on how much evil and how long, etc.

2) Anyone taking their cues and instructions (pattern of operation) from either source 0 or 1 takes also the good or evil thereof.
-- (A) So, someone originally good, taking power and ability from Eru, or indirectly from someone else good, starts out good. But can choose to do evil with the authority and ability.
-- (B) However, someone taking their pattern and method of operation from Morgoth or someone already declared/defined as evil, chooses the evil power, the evil pattern, the evil goals. Starts off more openly evil, less 'redemptive' options possibly.

For example, even Sauron was given a chance to repent. He posed as though he had, but was a hypocrite, and remained confirmed in his evil. Likewise, Saruman.

The fact that a good person can do or choose evil, yet have options for redemption, seems clear in your description of Galadriel (of which I was unaware, BTW, not having read the Sil yet) and in Tolkien's treatment of Gollum while with Frodo and Sam.

So to go back to my main point. Yes, all power originally comes from Eru. That is without question. But Eru neither created evil, or made any evil power. Yet evil and evil power are manifest in the stories. The evil nature of certain beings' power or use of it, is in their rebellion against Eru and his will.

P.S. I have been in the corporate environment too long. I think in bullet points... :rolleyes:

[Theron Bugtussle]

Originally posted by Estelyn Telcontar
...posts on this board are expected to be related to Tolkien and his works. While the topic may be comparative, it should not go off on an unrelated tangent for any length of time. Thank you to the moderators for doing the heavy lifting around here. :) Every one say, "Tough job!"

However, the topic being what it is AND comparative, too, I don't see how it has gotten off much. Nearly every post includes something about LotR or Tolkien. Even the few posts that deal primarily with some issue of HP and people's beliefs are, in general, responding to a post that related the two.

[Mister Underhill]

It is a tough job, and Esty does it very well.

Experience has shown that Tokien, Harry Potter, and religion can make a combustible mixture. Too frequently, we've seen HP/Tolkien/witchcraft threads take bad turns into heated religious arguments. Esty's post is just a reminder to keep this discussion focused on Tolkien.

[Lush]

*tiptoeing quietly around the 'Hillo*

Theron, naturally, I agree with everything you've just said in your latest post. I think our only quibble might be whether what occurs in Harry Potter is any different from what occurs in Lord of the Rings. The Mushroom seems to think so; I do and I don't.

I think the real difference lies in rhetoric: particularly in the word "witchcraft." It's present throughout the HP books and manifests itself in characters that are both good and evil. It's also present in LotR, but with negative connotations.

This might lead anyone to think that HP advertises the occult, whereas LotR explicitly condemns it.

I do not favour that view, because I think it hinges greatly on the use of a specific word, and less so on logic.

Stick the character of Galadriel into the world of HP, and what do you think her title would be? "Sorceress," at least.

I say this because I ultimately do not view the LotR as a book that has explicitly Christian themes; Tolkien intended to write it as a myth, and magic is one of the aspects myth will inevitably deal with. Naturally his creation is unique and its implications are unique as well, coloured by the author's own background, no less.

Yet if we were to read books strictly as the author intended them to be read, we would have no need for literature in general. Shakespeare, for example, would not have needed to bother with his comedies and tragedies and sonnets and etc. He should have just written a laundry-list of truisms on life as he saw it and left it at that.

Furthermore, I doubt that Tolkien neccessarily wished a specific Christian agenda to be attached to the books in the minds of his readers.

Ultimately, I think that people that oppose HP for religious reasons whilst condoning the LotR are failing to see beyond the rhetoric.

[Theron Bugtussle]

Originally posted by Lush
I think the real difference lies in rhetoric: particularly in the word "witchcraft." It's present throughout the HP books and manifests itself in characters that are both good and evil. It's also present in LotR, but with negative connotations. This might lead anyone to think that HP advertises the occult, whereas LotR explicitly condemns it.I think it's kind of cartoony and obvious in HP. It is literally the whole backdrop of the stories. In LotR it is a side issue. So the Harry Potter series really does advertise 'magic.'

Tolkien confronts the issue by defusing it--changing it into a different issue, by using an old English term "wizard" relating to wise with age, experience, wisdom.

Stick the character of Galadriel into the world of HP, and what do you think her title would be? "Sorceress," at least. Not necessarily. What is the quote when the hobbits are in Lothlorien, they ask about some elvish article, Is it magic? Elvish 'magic' is explained in a way that definitely does not imply anything like witchcraft (either the Bible kind or the Harry Potter kind).

I say this because I ultimately do not view the LotR as a book that has explicitly Christian themes; Tolkien intended to write it as a myth, and magic is one of the aspects myth will inevitably deal with. Naturally his creation is unique and its implications are unique as well, coloured by the author's own background, no less. I am sure we can both agree and disagree here on the semantics. "Explicit Christian themes" - Everything in the book comes from an implicit Christian worldview--not just the author's background worldview. The story, however, explicitly takes place in a fictional pre-Christian era, i.e., after the fall (initial sin) of man, but before Christ is revealed as the redeemer.

Rowling wanted to write a book about a witchcraft world--wizards and witches among us. She could have written it as a Science Fiction style, some other planet with nearly parallel "evolution" producing a race of wizards. She chose to put it in the "known" modern present world, possibly a relatively confrontational choice. But then to sidestep the religious prohibition/taboo on witchcraft, she invokes the "witchcraft gene" hole card.

Yet if we were to read books strictly as the author intended them to be read, we would have no need for literature in general. I don't understand your point here.

Furthermore, I doubt that Tolkien neccessarily wished a specific Christian agenda to be attached to the books in the minds of his readers."Agenda" as in baggage? As in allegory? I don't understand. The Lord of the Rings is not an evangelistic salvation tract that would be fit to hand out on street corners....

I think Tolkien would have been pleased and humbled that a reader could have taken from the book a strong appreciation for many clear Christian virtues, though his purpose was to write a great story, that pleased his interests.

P.S. Lest you get the wrong idea, I love the HP books, and encourage my children to read them.

[Lush]

Yet if we were to read books strictly as the author intended them to be read, we would have no need for literature in general.

I don't understand your point here.

What I mean is that literature as an art-form would become irrelevant. It would turn into pure rhetoric; whether religious, political, etc.

What is the quote when the hobbits are in Lothlorien, they ask about some elvish article, Is it magic? Elvish 'magic' is explained in a way that definitely does not imply anything like witchcraft (either the Bible kind or the Harry Potter kind)

I know what you're talking about, but am currently too lazy to climb off my bed to produce the quote (I'm posting this whilst taking a break from writing yet ANOTHER mid-term paper, bleh). I do, however, remember several facts about Galadriel that might, in fact, imply witchcraft. First, she can stop time with her ring. Second, the only way to defeat her at Lorien would be to have Sauron himself march on over there, because so "great" was her power at the time that she was practically unbeatable. Now, this could potentially indicate sorcery. Perhaps not the kind of sorcery that involves flying on brooms and mixing potions in cauldrons, but a strong whiff of supernatural powers nonetheless. Then again, Tolkien doesn't spell it out for you in that instance, so I'd say we're back to the nebulous world of interpretation.

[Bekah]

The majority of Christians accept LOTR and the Chronicles. I find that most who don't haven't actually read them. (How could they? After all, they'd go to hell in a hand-basket if they did, according to their own beliefs.)

Let's see...magic in LOTR is a gift of power from Eru, or Iluvatar, commonly associated with God. Choices are made and the gift is used - it is neither good nor evil in itself.

Magic in Narnia - we have Uncle Andrew (Magician's Nephew), who dabbled in the occult, the White Witch or Empress Jadis (MN, TLTWATW), and we have the Green Witch Serpent (Silver Chair). All are portrayed as the antagonists. Uncle Andrew is a proud fool who dabbled in the occult. Jadis was the last ruler of Charn, and the source of her power is dubious, though I believe it came from her searching for power to destroy. The Green Lady's power is...well, never mind.

HP, however, has everyday magic. IMHO its more scientific magic than anything else - spells for convienience. I don't believe God is completely out of the HP picture, but he certainly isn't 'visible' in the books. The gift is given to certain people. Their choices are their own; the practice of HP witchcraft is not the practice of 'demonic' witchcraft. God forbids witchcraft; but real-life witchcraft has nothing to do with HP witchcraft.

Am I making any sense? Feel free to PM me if you have any questions for me...or if they relate to the thread post them here...

Cheers,

~ Elentari II

[HerenIstarion]

but a strong whiff of supernatural powers nonetheless

It is arguable that no magic in ME is supernatural at that. Supernatural, as far as I can understand the term, means something taken, imposed, intruding from outside the nature(the implied feeling of something descending from above as with 'super' prefix nevertheless may be stretched to contain "outside" meaning). As a consequence, all powers acting within ME (yes, even Valar, for those are 'powers of the world', therefore parts of the world, so inside nature) are, in fact, natural. The only supernatural act we know off is the Intervention of Eru in case of Numenor, and, possibly, Gandalf's resurrection. In both cases the event is to be quilified as miracle and not magic. The definition of magic applies from the mortal point of view, for mortals do not possess such powers, and, due to their ignorance, label the art "magic" (as the abovementioned quote of Clark's goes: any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic)

As for HP, same principle may apply (if we draw the logical chain, it will lead us to conclusion that HP witchcraft is not magic either, for powers implied are also natural - so people are born to be wizards).

Therefore I, to my own slight surprise, come to conclusion that there is no magic (if it is what we define as supernatural powers) whatsoever in both books. Another conclusion follows that the whole fuss around HP comes from the usage of terms by the author. If she bothered to replace the 'bad' words with some scientific crap (as for telepathy, mental power tra la la tra la la), there would be nothing to clash our lances for.

[The Saucepan Man]

Supernatural, as far as I can understand the term, means something taken, imposed, intruding from outside the nature(the implied feeling of something descending from above as with 'super' prefix nevertheless may be stretched to contain "outside" meaning). Then again, one might describe the Valar and the Elves as "supernatural" in the sense that they are not governed by the normal, cyclical laws of nature which impose a limited life span on natural creatures and which require that such creatures eventually die so as to make way for the next generation. Since (while Arda endures at least) neither the Valar nor the Elves die of old age, they are in that sense outside nature and therefore supernatural. Might it not therefore be fitting to describe their powers as supernatural?

[Mister Underhill]

Stick the character of Galadriel into the world of HP, and what do you think her title would be? "Sorceress," at least.
Lush has a point here; you don't even have to put Galadriel in the world of HP. She's known as "the Sorceress of the Golden Wood" in Rohan. Éomer:'Then there is a Lady in the Golden Wood, as old tales tell!' he said. 'Few escape her nets, they say. These are strange days! But if you have her favour, then you also are net-weavers and sorcerers, maybe.'

[The Saucepan Man]

Although, to be fair, Eomer didn't exactly paint a positive picture of Galadriel. His association of her with sorcerers appears to have been done with negative intent.

[Mister Underhill]

Yeah, I think that's sort of the point. Don't the 'muggles' in HP judge the 'wizard' characters as, if not outright evil, then at least dangerous and unnatural? Éomer's comments are based on fear and ignorance, and are far from the truth, as Gimli attests.

[The Saucepan Man]

True, but HP and his chums would happily describe each other as witches and sorcerors, whereas I don't see Galadriel referring to herself in these terms.

The words are used positively in the HP books, whereas they have more negative connotations in Tolkien's works.

Which is why I think Lush is spot on when she says:

... the real difference lies in rhetoric.

[Lalaith]

To those who would distinguish LotR from HP on the grounds that in Tolkien everything emenates from Eru - you only find that out if you've read the Sil. There is no mention of Eru or indeed of any religious practice or belief in LotR, except perhaps for Faramir and his men turning west before they eat.

I first read LotR before the Sil was ever published, and when it (the Sil) finally came out, I was quite surprised when I read the Ainulindale. "Oh, there is a kind of religion in Tolkien after all," I thought. I was a child at the time so I was perhaps not so aware of underlying symbolism and so on, but I still think that most adults today who have only read LotR would not necessarily be struck by its Christian meaning.

My own belief is that those who want/need religion in Tolkien will find it and those who insist on seeing evil in Harry Potter will find that too.
I am also not aware of this issue of banning Tolkien, Rowling or whatever being debated anywhere outside the US, but I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.

(Oh and as for witchcraft in the Bible - Saul consulted the Witch of Endor in order to communicate with the dead Samuel. Necromancy, no less!)

[Theron Bugtussle]

Originally posted by The Saucepan Man
Then again, one might describe the Valar and the Elves as "supernatural" in the sense that they are not governed by the normal, cyclical laws of nature which impose a limited life span on natural creatures and which require that such creatures eventually die so as to make way for the next generation. Since (while Arda endures at least) neither the Valar nor the Elves die of old age, they are in that sense outside nature and therefore supernatural. Might it not therefore be fitting to describe their powers as supernatural? I understand Tolkien made Valar to be angel-like in the Biblical schema. They were created by God. They are outside time and space, because they were created before the world or natural universe that is limited to space and time. So that they may enter into the natural world with supernatural powers or characteristics: moving faster than the speed of light, pass through solid objects, slay thousands of men in a single night, etc. So that would be manifesting supernatural characteristics. What is "natural" to them, characteristics inherent in their nature, would be considered supernatural to us.

Now the Elves are a different matter. I think I read in the Letters, but maybe here on the forum ;) that Elves and Men are like different aspects of human nature in Tolkien's design. I don't really understand it that way, but do not really know how to define elves, or their "power". Galadriel gets some power from her ring. I don't really know the nature of the ring. What power would she have as a ringless elf?

The "good" men do not refer to elves as evil or sorceresses, etc. except out of fear and ignorance. However, there is clearly much about Elves that is "super" man-natural, or above the inherent nature of man.

Anyway, I am pretty sure there is more than a "rhetorical" difference between the magics (HP vs LotR).

[Theron Bugtussle]

Originally posted by Bekah
The majority of Christians accept LOTR and the Chronicles. I find that most who don't haven't actually read them.If most Christians in your experience who DON'T "accept" LotR and Narnia Chronicles HAVE NOT read them, it is a sordid story, but found all too often in every type of situation--and not only among Christians.

However, I have a humorous story to relate. My children began reading the stories before I ever got around to checking them out. I had a vague uneasiness, because of the witchcraft issue and the books' popularity. I just made sure my children understood this to be make-believe.

My mother-in-law, without having read the books, said, "You're not letting them read THAT?!" My wife said, "Mama, why don't you read one? You're a former school teacher and a Sunday School (Christian training) teacher. You should be able to evaluate it yourself. Then let's talk about it."

She did and found them thoroughly entertaining and "non-corrupting."

Well, there was some big hoohah about one of the recent books published or the HP movies or something. And all the little old ladies in the Sunday School class, were up in arms about how people could let their children read/see/whatever. My mother-in-law said, "Well, have you ever read them?"

"NO!"

"Well, I have. And I see better character and values in there than I see in lots of church people!"

That pretty much shut them up. :smokin:
(How could they [read them]? After all, they'd go to hell in a hand-basket if they did, according to their own beliefs.)Explain what belief or belief system you are talking about. I know certain people freak out like something is going to jump on them from out of the pages, but it is not according to teaching, Biblical or otherwise that I am aware of.

HP, however, has everyday...scientific magic... I don't believe God is completely out of the HP picture, but he certainly isn't 'visible' in the books. The gift is given to certain people. Their choices are their own; the practice of HP witchcraft is not the practice of 'demonic' witchcraft. God forbids witchcraft; but real-life witchcraft has nothing to do with HP witchcraft. I mentioned the author's choice to instill a "witchcraft" gene thesis as a way to bypass the Biblical injunction on witchcraft. These people don't have a choice. Which, in her fictional world is completely acceptable within the rules she establishes as the author.

However, by choosing to set the stories within present day society (wizards among us), she may have chosen purposefully to rile up these reactions among people.

Anyway, Bekah, what do you mean by "real-life witchcraft?"

[Bekah]

If most Christians in your experience who DON'T "accept" LotR and Narnia Chronicles HAVE NOT read them, it is a sordid story, but found all too often in every type of situation--and not only among Christians.

It is indeed. Btw, by 'Christians' I meant those who proclaim themselves to be, regardless of their personal relationship with Christ. After all, only God can truly judge a person. I cannot say, though, that I think those who condemn something without having enough knowledge of it to be able to form a valid judgement to be wise.

My mother-in-law, without having read the books, said, "You're not letting them read THAT?!" My wife said, "Mama, why don't you read one? You're a former school teacher and a Sunday School (Christian training) teacher. You should be able to evaluate it yourself. Then let's talk about it."

She did and found them thoroughly entertaining and "non-corrupting."

Which is why I believe it is best to gather information from reliable sources, such as your own personal experience, before judging....very amusing story, btw.

Explain what belief or belief system you are talking about. I know certain people freak out like something is going to jump on them from out of the pages, but it is not according to teaching, Biblical or otherwise that I am aware of.

Ever heard of the Exclusive Brethrens? My mother is employed by them as a teacher, and I went to the school last week for two days to visit. The EBS ban pretty much everything on account of it not being 'Godly' or because it will 'corrupt' anyone in contact with whatever it is....I daresay there are other groups of people with beliefs that result in banning books/movies for various reasons such as supposed 'evil witchcraft', but I don't know of them personally.

Anyway, Bekah, what do you mean by "real-life witchcraft?"

More along the kind that you would encounter in the Bible or perhaps Wicca.

(Oh and as for witchcraft in the Bible - Saul consulted the Witch of Endor in order to communicate with the dead Samuel. Necromancy, no less!)

Like that...

To those who would distinguish LotR from HP on the grounds that in Tolkien everything emenates from Eru - you only find that out if you've read the Sil. There is no mention of Eru or indeed of any religious practice or belief in LotR, except perhaps for Faramir and his men turning west before they eat.

True, true, but it is my belief that God (or Eru) is always there even if there is no visible sign of him...

I think I should stop thinking about this for now. I'm starting to get a headache....

Cheers,

~ Elentari II

[HerenIstarion]

Saucepen Man supernatural elves re (leaving whole witchcraft issue alone for a while):

From mortal point of view, yes, maybe they must have been thought of as supernatural (even at that time)

On the other hand, no, neither elves nor even Valar seem supernatural at all. By nature I mean not a nearby wood and a river , the Nature in question is the whole of the universe, created in the Halls of Eru. It is arguable that Ainur were before time and creation of the world, and therefore must be supernatural, but I was talking about Valar, who entered the World because they loved it and are henceforward bound by it. Ainur who did not do not meddle with the world afterwards. So, the argument is - whatever is inside nature, is natural, regardless its abilities of walking thrugh walls or high speed travel or enchantment

There is a whole of Osanwe-Kenta to consult with (as to restrictions following such an entrance and imposed by 'being bound with the history of the world', i.e. impossibility to interact with the substance of the world if not at least 'clothed' in a body etc.) Check out Jallanite's entry
here (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?s=&threadid=566) It deals mainly with the possibility of flight for the incarnate Maiar, but can give an insight as for 'supernaturalness' as well.

Therefore, I conclude, that there is no magic (if defined as something supernatural) in ME, but mere application of natural faculties

[Lalaith]

Explain what belief or belief system you are talking about.
Bekah mentions one, but I have read posts on this site by many young people in the US who have found themselves in trouble at their schools for reading LotR, which was banned on religious grounds. There's a thread on the subject here.
http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3226&highlight=parochial

However, by choosing to set the stories within present day society (wizards among us), she may have chosen purposefully to rile up these reactions among people.

Not at all. JK Rowling is British. She wrote HP originally for a British readership, and there is no witchcraft/book-banning controversy over here. It is very much a US issue, and only surfaced once HP became internationally successful.

[HerenIstarion]

It is very much a US issue

international, I should say. There was quite a fuss in Russia immediately following the Russian tranlsation some years back (I happened to be at the place at a time), and there is quite a fuss in Georgia right now, for the two first books translations have been published last year and the third is coming along. Just this morning I've been watching the TV debates in the morning show, guests being the HP publisher, his advisor on one hand and some religious issue dealing newspaper editor and her mate on the other

[Lalaith]

Fair enough.
I'm just going by the fact that in western Europe most media reports on controversy seem to come from the States. And I suspect that the Russian/Georgian fuss might have been sparked by the initial furore in the US.

But I don't think it would have occurred to either Tolkien or Rowling that magic/fantasy content in their books would upset or offend Christians. It just isn't an issue in the environment they were both writing in.

[The Saucepan Man]

It is very much a US issue, and only surfaced once HP became internationally successful. Well, it’s certainly not a British issue. We are probably the least religious country in the world right at this moment.

Explain what belief or belief system you are talking about. Click on the article linked to in this thread (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?threadid=3368&highlight=article+christian+evil) for an example of one of the more extreme reactions against LotR (and HP). Mind you, I agree with this Yusko guy on one point: if one is inclined to condemn HP on religious grounds, then one should condemn LotR too. Where I disagree with him is that I do not believe that either should be condemned. Indeed, this article is a very real example of the extremes to which one can go if one starts banning works on the basis of real or perceived contradictions with one’s belief system. :eek:

On the other hand, no, neither elves nor even Valar seem supernatural at all … So, the argument is - whatever is inside nature, is natural, regardless its abilities of walking through walls or high speed travel or enchantment. I was talking about “nature” in terms of the natural cycle (the Circle of Life – to put it in Lion King terms :rolleyes: ). Immortal beings would certainly seem to be outside of nature in the sense of being outside this natural cycle of life.

Nevertheless, I agree, HI, that, if you define nature in the wider sense of the natural world of Arda, then nothing which exists within Arda can be considered supernatural. Then again, as you said earlier, the same argument can apply to the world of HP. :)

[Lush]

And I suspect that the Russian/Georgian fuss might have been sparked by the initial furore in the US.

Well, I can't speak for the Georgians, but the fuss in Russia has more to do with how freakin' backward certain elements of Russian society have become in recent years.

Please don't think this issue is limited to Harry Potter either. Tolkien's works are viewed as equally corrupting by religious zealots.

I ought to know, I'm part of that institution (as in, I'm a practicing Russian Orthodox).

I suspect the Russian religious furor over Harry Potter and Tolkien has a lot to do with the church being able to let off steam after decades of being suppressed. It's like the initial fizz that comes out of a coke bottle that's been shaken one time too many.

P.S. As a disclaimer, though, on the other hands we have a large number of young Russian Orthodox priests smoking Marlboros in public, wearing jeans under their robes, reading everything from Tolkien to "Emmanuelle" (to educate themselves on popular culture, naturally). Russia is just...confused right now, in that whole lovable, post-USSR, utter economic meltdown sort of way.

P.P.S. Oh, and Heren, I'm totally right about magic in LotR, and you're totally wrong! Hehe. I think at this point we can agree to disagree.

[HerenIstarion]

magic re: âñå ìîæåò áûòü...

well. dunno about being totally something, yet with all due respect I will retain my view in the case, m'lady...

*H-I bows

I suspect the Russian religious furor over Harry Potter and Tolkien has a lot to do with the church being able to let off steam after decades of being suppressed

Same thing down here in the case. Though, to be honest, it is to be said that priesthood is divided with regards of their views of HP (nothing about LoTR so far, since only the Hobbit have been translated into Georgian, and movie issue haven't got into the scope of attention of the said zealots)

[Lush]

A thought struck me today (better a thought that a truck, right?);

What if, the seeming discrepancy between the way that LotR and Harry Potter are perceived by "concerned" parents might have something to do with the advent of the information age and the way people have reacted to it?

Think about it. Back when Tolkien was first beginning to be published, the illusion of living in a vacuum still pervailed for many conservatives. The positive aspect of that, in my opinion, was that this made parents feel somehow more "responsible" for the way their young children behaved. The media was gaining power, but it did not yet seem omnipresent.

When Tolkien arrived on the scene, sure, religious concerns were raised and addressed. Protesting a work of art is not a 20th century invention; yet the past centuries organized religion's primary concern was science. The outlets used to popularize art were not nearly as powerful as they have recently become. In the context of the family, therefore, art did not seem to be an immediate threat to children. Furthermore, parents felt that they had more of a say in terms what their children read and how the reading affected them.

Flash forward to today. Mass-media appears to be taking over human conscience; the exchange of information is easy; news are merging with advertising and suddenly media executives have become "experts" on how to live.

How many local news reports do you watch a week that purport to intimidate you into leading your life a certain way? How many journalists/pundits/talk-show hosts appear to reach out to you and tell you that it is up to them to solve your problems?

In this climate, with Harry Potter arriving fresh on the scene and immediately becoming as familiar as Cindy Crawford's mole through the power of hype, parents feel marginalized. It's as if raising their children is no longer up to them anymore; it's up to Disney, it's up to MTV, it's up to...Rowling.

If an average conservative Christian father, for example, suddenly discovers his daughter to be dabbling in the occult, his immediate response may not be: "what have I done wrong in explaining to her that our religion does not approve of this?" Rather, it may go along these lines: "What has the media done wrong?" "What has Harry Potter done wrong?" "What has the chain bookstore done wrong?"

Tolkien, having already become an intrinsic part of pop culture, is safer by comparison. His books have been around. They seem to have been time-tested. They're alright.

Right?

(Though it would be curious to see just what the recent films have been doing to that image)

[HerenIstarion]

fine by me

Though the wish to blame others for any blunders, even one's own, is what humans generally do. It's always good day for someone else to die, hum.

...my cow is dead not cause I'd forgotten to feed it, but cause that warty-nosy woman next door bewitched it...

But you are probably right. May be that, once written century ago, HP might have taken place on the shelves beside Alice.

[Theron Bugtussle]

I read the linked forum threads and articles till my eyes glazed over... I read the entire original wacko article on the website that referred to HP and LOTR as evil.

1. The guy just stated his opinion condemning everyone who basically does not think exactly as he does. I did not see any reasonable or logical argument from the Bible or anything. Just a bunch of propaganda techniques. So I can just dismiss that as that idiot's opinion.

So my more or less innocent question still stands. I mean a Bible or otherwise kind of justification for opposing LotR. Because beliefs are just that, beliefs. Like the T-shirt I had in college:Everyone has to believe in something. I believe I'll have another beer!
2. Almost everyone (at least many of the replies) on B-D forum said that guy has no right to say [fill in the blank here as to what he said]. Hello? Assuming the web-ranter-dude was from the USA, he has a right to his freedom of speech just as much as the B-D'ers. Well, actually more, because I noticed the Wight stomped one of the threads closed because it was off-topic. That is his right as forum moderator, because this place (forum) is not free speech. So everyone who said "he has no right" is just as "wrong" as the web-ranter.

3. On the thread about LOTR being banned from a school, it turned out on the second page of the thread (hard to remember, both eyes and half my brain was glazed over by that time) that it was a false alarm, and it was really HP that was targeted. People were still ranting about it.

4. In a private school, at least (presumably it was some religious one), the principal may indeed have the right and/or authority (depending on the charter) to 'ban' materials such as books based on content. I won't get into any details, but all the B-D'ers who were, again, yelling "What gives them the right?" were just down right wrong!

I even noted one person said, Hey, this is the USA, you can do anything you want! (not an exact quote, but that was the gist of it.) To which I say, what? Are you reading that in the US Constitution? Or is that some flyer from the People's Republic of California? Ha ha, maybe it is the Zeroth (0th) Amendment: We the people can do anything we want--after all, this is America.

[HerenIstarion]

Theron Bugtussle, and the morale is...?

[Theron Bugtussle]

Heren, my original post was as follows:

Quote from Bekah:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(How could they [read them]? After all, they'd go to hell in a hand-basket if they did, according to their own beliefs.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quoting my own reply:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explain what belief or belief system you are talking about. I know certain people freak out like something is going to jump on them from out of the pages, but it is not according to teaching, Biblical or otherwise that I am aware of.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then Bekah responded of a sect/church that has some beliefs against worldliness. I was hoping for an explanation of those beliefs, some teaching or instruction as to how they developed the justification for a "ban" on The Lord of the Rings. There was no explanation of it there, though.

Then Lalaith and The Saucepan Man responded with links to threads where the book was banned. One of the threads included a link to a religious "ranter" against LotR, but my point is (point #1), there was no substance there, no logical case, no Bible instruction as to how he arrived at his opinion. So I am still looking for the belief system.

My point #2 was, that in those threads, the B-D'ers that disagree with the "ranter" are just as wrong when they say he has no "right" to condemn it or them, or whatever. He has the right to disagree with you, or me. I personally believe he is wrong, but he has the right to be "wrong" in my eyes.

I think this is how "political correctness" starts or perpetuates. People say, "You have no right!" when they should be saying, "I disagree with you. And I will debate you about it."

My point #3 was, the B-D'ers were going off "half-cocked" about a "ban" on The Lord of the Rings that never really happened. Then when the mistake was indicated on the thread, some B-D'ers continued to rant and rave about how it was wrong... Anyone feel embarrassed yet?

My point #4 was that in many school circumstances, particularly private (non-taxpayer) or religious schools, the authorities have every right to set the academic tone, rules, content, etc. So all B-D'ers disagreeing (again about the issue of rights) were wrong.

I realize that many members here are relatively young. So maybe you/they do not always clearly understand what a 'right' is and that people can disagree.

Next time, it might help if you read my reply a little closer. I usually try to make a meaningful explanation of my arguments. If that fails, read my sig! ;)

[Lush]

So one of the most beautiful aspects of life in America is that everyone can enjoy their constitutionally protected right to spout the most profoundly stupid stuff you might hear on this side of Western Civilization.

Ah, liberty.

My high school should have banned LotR, considering that I devoted entire class periods to reading Tolkien, only occasionally looking up with a glazed look in my eyes and mumbling nonesense about Aragorn when the answer was "Andropov."

[HerenIstarion]

Theron, how dare you? You have no right to give me long explanations!

*reads the sig

ah, so you were talking to yourself, than? You have no right to talk to yourself on the public fora!!!

*reflects a bit more

And nobody has the right to ban my wish to have a morale than and there!!!!!

_________________

Well (good way to start apologetical sentences, the 'well' thingy). I hope you were not hurt by the bit of foolery immediately above.

And, of course, pray accept my apologies on being inattentive to your previous posts.

I was drifting in another direction with theological issues, (after all, that is what started the whole thread, 'banning/right to do so' being a side walk as a consequence of books being thought satanical) so concluded you were referring to those, not to human rights as it came out. I will be more attentive next time

cheers (and no worries, eh?) :)

[The Saucepan Man]

Mr Bugtussle

One of the threads included a link to a religious "ranter" against LotR, but my point is (point #1), there was no substance there, no logical case, no Bible instruction as to how he arrived at his opinion. So I am still looking for the belief system. If you are enquiring whether there is any formal "belief system" (in the sense of an organised religion) which advocates the banning of books such as LotR as one of its precepts, then clearly there is none. On the other hand, individuals such as Yusko the Ranter clearly interpret their religion as holding that any mention of magic and witchraft is contrary to their faith and therefore taboo (to the extent, in Yusko's case, that he considers any involvement with them merits eternal damnation). In that sense, the advocation of a ban on books such as LotR and HP is part of his belief system and that of others like him. And I would be surprised if this was limited to Chrisitanity. Most religions have their intolerant wings (for example, Mr Yusko's approach, if not his specific beliefs, is akin to that of extreme Islam, although I doubt that he would accept such a proposition in a million years).

the B-D'ers that disagree with the "ranter" are just as wrong when they say he has no "right" to condemn it or them, or whatever. He has the right to disagree with you, or me. I personally believe he is wrong, but he has the right to be "wrong" in my eyes. You are, of course, strictly speaking correct. But I think that you are interpreting people's use of the word "right" rather too narrowly. I don't think that anyone is suggesting (or would be, if they thought about it) that this guy has no legal right to express his views. Really, they are just saying much the same as you (albeit perhaps more clumsily so), ie that what he says is in their opinion not right, ie it is "wrong". I can understand people in this forum (a Tolkien forum, after all) expressing their views in such forceful terms, particularly those of the Christian faith themselves who find their beliefs and sacred texts being twisted by individuals such as Yusko in this way.

My point #3 was, the B-D'ers were going off "half-cocked" about a "ban" on The Lord of the Rings that never really happened. Then when the mistake was indicated on the thread, some B-D'ers continued to rant and rave about how it was wrong... Anyone feel embarrassed yet? I would imagine that this is the result of people not reading the entire thread before posting (a practice that I would most certainly discourage). Nevertheless, even if the specific ban being discussed on that thread never came into effect, LotR has, I believe, been banned in some schools and communities in the US (and possibly elsewhere in the world too).

in many school circumstances, particularly private (non-taxpayer) or religious schools, the authorities have every right to set the academic tone, rules, content, etc. So all B-D'ers disagreeing (again about the issue of rights) were wrong. Again, I think that you are being unduly restrictive in your interpretation of people's use of the word "right". Of course, there are undoubtedly areas where schools have the legal right to ban books such as LotR. The question is whether it is "right" for them to do so in a wider sense of the word. Personally, I consider any restriction on freedom of speech, save in very limited circumstances (such as where necessary for national security or to protect children and other vulnerable sections of society), to be a breach of natural law and contrary to basic human rights. In my view, neither LotR nor HP falls within the limited circumstances noted above, and so I am happy to say that these schools have no right to impose such a ban. Yes, that's my subjective view, but it's one that I feel very confident in stating, and one which I am most happy to defend.

[HerenIstarion]

The thread seemingly have had developed two parallel courses.

A) Human rights
B) Whether books fall under descrpition of 'satanic' (as described by Christian Faith, since the schools in question presumably profess such)

I rather tend to assume the main thing here is the clause B, and once it is solved (and I believe it is solved up there), the whole issue is worked out as well. For once it is proved LoTR and HP are books definitely acceptable by those professing Christianity, the whole point of banning those is lost

As for the A clause, I personally believe that schools have a right and are entitled to ban anything and everything from the classes, but individual has the right and is entitled to read whatever he/she pleases in the dormitory.

My [free] time is my own to spend, whatever the bans.

The major problem arises once school tries to ban one's free-time reading. Than indeed the battlecry of "excuse me pal, but you have no right to do so" should be uttered

Still more, it is unwise to ban a book, lest authorities doing so are not secret admirers trying to advertise it, and cunningly disguising themselves as persecutors in secret hope that thus books they are banning would become a way more popular. You tell people not to do something, next minute everyone is trying it out (even those who would not if it were free to do)

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

Well, I guess worse things have been done before...

Sometimes I wonder whether Prof T had any interest in the Unknown himself. He spun very wonderful tales about wizards and elves and magic, but the only definitions and explainations that he himself would provide for all these unnatural stuff are that they are all things that Mundane Men have not heard about and learnt of. That really sounded a lot like: "You won't understand if I tell you anyway, so why bother to ask?"

All myths and fiction come from the thoughts of the human brain, and as such, should have basis in th actual living world, whether perceived or factual.

[HerenIstarion]

You won't understand if I tell you anyway, so why bother to ask?

I haven't got such a feeling even for the Hobbit, as for the rest, Tolkien went to some considerable pains to explain the so called 'unnatural' things in his HoME series afterwards, really. Try customs of the Eldar, for instance. Wonder why lembas is so sustaining - look into it. etc.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

*smash head against wall for misplacing HoME and BoLT after such a long time.*

'Stir not the bitterness in the cup that I mixed for myself,'

Ah, well... I needed that information on why Lembas are so filling still...

[HerenIstarion]

BoLT is the part of HoME as far as my knowledge reaches. Whilst not being right (to avoid possible comments, you have the right to do so in a sense as Theron puts it, but not right to do so as Saucepan Man feels it ;)) in smashing your head against wall (it hurts, presumably), try looking on the other end (vv 10 and 12)

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

First of all, thanks guys for such an interesting and well argued thread. It took a good one to drag me out of my seclusion and get me to post here.:rolleyes:

As for my contribution to this debate, I think that Lush is on to something here:

What if, the seeming discrepancy between the way that LotR and Harry Potter are perceived by "concerned" parents might have something to do with the advent of the information age and the way people have reacted to it?

I think part of the screaming frenzy among certain conservative Christian groups about Harry Potter, and the lack of such a reaction to LOTR has a lot to do with currency (as in the state of being current) and publicity. Harry Potter is a new, intriguing, fascinating phenomenon, and like so many people have pointed out, people are frightened by what they do not understand, in this case, that something is the nature of the magic(k) used in Harry Potter. Since the issue is not whether these Christian groups are right in taking an anti-witchcraft position, but whether such a position applies to the content of Tolkien's works and Rowling's respectively, I'm not going to offer an apology for the Christian position here. But it's easy for someone to understand why, when Harry Potter has a lightningbolt burst of popularity, one could be pressured into taking an extreme position.

Why then, is this not happening with Tolkien? With Return of the King taking so many Oscars this year, it's hard (ok, impossible;)) to say it's less popular than Harry Potter. However, it's a lot less recent. Lord of the Rings has been flying just under the radar of public notice for decades now. The "concerned parent" who was quietly exposed to Tolkien twenty years ago need not be nervous about it.

Give Christian (and any other anti-HP) groups a few years. I suspect eventually the liberal and moderate ones will accept Rowling (if they already haven't). The hyper-conservative probably don't like Tolkien either, they've just stopped talking about it.

Sophia

[drigel]

Nice post Sophia - i agree with you. I get reminded that here some times that I am old lol ... Remember the 70's? lol There were many Christian groups that lumped JRRT right in there with Dungeons and Dragons and Black Sabbath lol
Escapist devil stuff...

To me the difference between LOTR and HP is the difference between a fiction novel (a contrived work of fiction), and a fairy tale (something timeless about it's nature and its themes, and every culture has them). Kids get that. Most adults dont.

[Lalaith]

Actually, you can draw the distinction wherever you like.

There seems to be no hard and fast rule as to what literature could be 'acceptable' to Christians. It depends on what kind of 'Christian' you are talking about. For example, I've just been looking at a website called keepersofthefaith which recommended that C.S Lewis, Little Women, Anne of Green Gables and Laura Ingalls Wilder should be kept away from good Christian children because of their corruptive anti-Biblical influences. :rolleyes:

And if I were going to be cynical, I'd say that a lot of these book-burners and book-banners focus on popular, high-profile works in order to attract attention to themselves and their sects.

[Lush]

Omigod omigod omigod, Lalaith, that site is hours worth of free entertainment. Thank you so much. Omigod, they use the phrase "communistic governments." I'm in heaven!

It depends on what kind of 'Christian' you are talking about.

Exactly. Christians aren't homogenous. We are all unique and beautiful snowflakes.

And if I were going to be cynical, I'd say that a lot of these book-burners and book-banners focus on popular, high-profile works in order to attract attention to themselves and their sects.

I haven't thought of that before.

Personally, I sometimes like the opportunity to be challenged in my literary tastes. I like having conversations with people about why they don't like Tolken. What I don't like is when people can't back up their arguments with anything remotely worthy of my attention.

But when they act like idiots they are at least entertaining.

[Firefoot]

We had an interesting discussion in faith class today, talking about world view, and someone brought up HP versus LotR. The gist of what my teacher said was that Harry Potter, while on the outside is a good story, has some underlying themes that are "occultic," whereas the themes underlying LotR are more Christian. An example he gave is that there came a point where Frodo and Sam both realized that in order to destroy the Ring they would have to die. I suppose that the sacrifice of Frodo and Sam is seen as a Christian theme.

These are not completely my thoughts, but I thought it was a good example of a Christian point of view on things.

[Lalaith]

hours worth of free entertainment

*grins* yes it is rather good, isn't it.

But more seriously, and more relevantly to this topic, I found the review/attack on CS Lewis on that site interesting reading, as insight into just what it is about fantasy that upsets this kind of very conservative mindset.

I think its a bit lame to justify reading of Tolkien by seeking evidence in his work of scriptural parallel - making him some sort of exception to the 'guilty til proved innocent' attitude to literature.
I lament this general desire to assume wickedness and devilry in works of human imagination, it seems rather mediaeval to me.

[Theron Bugtussle]

Originally posted by Lush
So one of the most beautiful aspects of life in America is that everyone can...spout the most profoundly stupid stuff you might hear on this side of Western Civilization.

Ah, liberty.
Indeed. It is also fantastically refreshing that yahoos like myself can both own and tote weapons of individual destruction (firearms) in this great country. But alas, that is for a different forum.

HerenIstarion, not a problem in the world. Enjoy talking to myself after all. ;)

Saucepan Man, ...clearly there is no...formal "belief system" ...which advocates the banning of books such as LotR as one of its precepts....

Perhaps there is, I was just wanting to see it defined. I understand and agree with your point that some people believe (at least in their gut) that their religion prohibits things like LotR and can arrive at some justification for a ban.

On the other hand, individuals such as Yusko the Ranter...

Also affectionately known as Yusko the Rant. :D Feel free to use these terms interchangeably.

...considers any involvement with them merits eternal damnation.

That would be the non-Roman Catholic "eternal damnation without chance for Purgatory-like parole!" Yusko the Rant willingly skates on the thin ice of his own eternal destiny by even becoming polluted with talking about such vile sin to us ignorant souls.

I think that you are interpreting people's use of the word "right" rather too narrowly.

Probably my destiny, my personal cross to bear, if you will. You are correct, of course. As long as people read my own rants, think about them (as in, "think about what you are saying"), then go on their merry ways, I am happy.

And finally, this "restriction on freedom of speech" is, in my opinion, very much within the realm of your proposed "...very limited circumstances (such as where necessary...to protect children..." . And so this is parental, and therefore, derivatively, school authority that can debate and decide this for (on behalf of) the children. Which you are welcome to debate and/or debunk at will.

[Theron Bugtussle]

Originally posted by Lush
We are all unique and beautiful snowflakes. I am unique, and you are beautiful. But I am not a snowflake. More of a snowball. Or an icicle. With a sharp point.

What I don't like is when people can't back up their arguments with anything remotely worthy of my attention.That is what I have been saying, only Lush said it better. You are a gentlewoman and a...a...according to your location blurb, you are in love. Congrats!

But when they act like idiots they are at least entertaining. :smokin:

[HerenIstarion]

BTW (referring more to the page 1 of the thread:

Exodus 22:18: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

It is often suggested that the Hebrew word used here should be translated 'poisoner', Though I'm unable to produce any 'pro' or 'contra' argument, still it gives some thoughts to ponder...

[Theron Bugtussle]

No time (or really inclination) to research this, but I think I recall that at least in the NT, the word for witchcraft was occasionally claimed by preachers to be related to drugs. This was used to invoke Biblical authority for prohibiting drug use. Except the claim never seemed to extend to the prohibition of doctor-prescribed drugs...

[HerenIstarion]

I'm bringing this up for several reasons:

1. For Science and Faith in Middle Earth (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?p=358923#post358923) thread (Fordim)
2. For Yet Another Call by Me (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=11322) thread (Imladris)
3. For it's own sake
4. Cause (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=4646)