[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

But this is effectively saying that those who do not have faith are incapable of making moral distinctions, which I simply cannot accept. In my view (and in my world) the perception of good and evil exists irrespective of the existence of, or any firm belief in, a God. Provided that the protagonists are using their powers in a way which is I consider to be good (as is the case in both LotR and Harry Potter's world), then it matters not to me whether its source is portrayed as divine or simply an innate ability or aptitude. I would have no problem with my children reading either.

But we're not discussing what matters to you, but what matters to certain fundamentalist Christians. I wasn't expressing my own views, necessarily, but attempting to show how LotR is essentially different from HP & why some Christians might have a problem with HP but not LotR

Rowling is not (and should not be expected to be) setting out to teach children morality from scratch. Her books assume that her readers are capable of perceiving the difference between right and wrong (a reasonable assumption, in my view). But what she is doing is presenting them with characters - 'role models' if you like - who behave morally, exhibit virtuous characteristics (loyalty, bravery etc) and act for the good and against evil, thus reinforcing the lessons which they will have already begun to learn (from their parents, one would hope). To the extent that her readers "judge" the actions of her characters, it is against criteria with which they are already familiar.

So, like the 'magic' in her universe, the 'morality' is morally neutral too? The reader decides, based on their own subjective criteria whether a character is 'good' or 'evil' - Rowling will not offer an objective moral standard by which actions are to be judged. So, a reder is free to see either Harry or Voldemort as the 'hero' depending on their individual moral value system? Who says 'loyalty & bravery' are 'moral' or 'virtuous'? Certainly they cannot be said to be 'moral & virtuous' in & of themselves - that would depend on exactly what the character is being loyal to, wouldn't it? And as to 'bravery' - that isn't necessarily morally good - a Death camp guard who risked his life to force children into a gas oven would have been seen by his superiors as behaving 'bravely', even heroically.

So, again, there has to be some objective moral yardstick by which even loyalty & bravery are judged as good or evil.

I would also note that Rowling hails from a primarily secular society, and so the "absence" of God from her works is to be expected. I would no more expect Rowling to to portray her characters' magical powers as having their source in God than I would expect the abilities (such as intelligence and ingenuity) used by the Famous Five or the Borrowers or Doctor Who as having a divine origin (oops - showing my age again ). If one has a strong faith, then there is no reason why one cannot simply assume that the magical powers of Harry Potter and his friends are God given, just as one would assume the same of the (generally more mundane) abilities any other characters from children's novels where no specific mention is made of God. And if one does not have a strong faith, then the issue is, as I have said, largely irrelevant.

Its not about 'God' - its about some objective moral standard against which the character's actions can be judged - Tolkien supplies one - & you don't have to be a Christian to accept Eru. Eru simply provides an objective yardstick by which the actions of characters in Me can be judged. Rowling doesn't provide one - the reader must supply their own. Problem? Rowling's secondary world is not self contained & is dependent on the primary world for something absolutely essential if it is to work. It is a secondary world absent of its own objective moral standard, of a source of Right & Wrong, of Good & Evil. It is not self contained in the way Middle earth is. If you wish there to be a 'God' in the HP universe you have to bring in your own, if you want morality, you have to supply it. As I said, a reader may decide Voldemort is the hero & Harry the villain if they wish. In Middle earth this is not logically possible, because Eru is the ultimate moral yardstick ('I think we'll get tired of that word soon!') by which characters are judged. A reader may be free to prefer Sauron to Aragorn or Frodo, but they are not free to decide he is 'Good' because Eru has set standards by which Good & evil are to be judged & by those objective standards Sauron is not good.