Harry Potter?!?

[Brendan]

So for you to reject Harry Potter, I can logically make the assumption that

A.) You won’t let your kids read books dealing with fantastical things like magic, making it safe to assume there are a LOT of things you don’t let your kids enjoy

or

B.) You suddenly have a problem with Harry Potter because Dumbledore retroactively became gay, also an overreaction.

What about if we object to Harry’s use of torture and choose not to let our kids read books about where the use of torture, and enslavement methods is done by the supposed ‘hero’ with impunity.

The use of Magic, I have no objection to, as we can find that in the Wizard of Oz and the Lord of the Rings.

But I would rather my kids read about Bilbo and Frodo, who show mercy to Golum, instead of Harry, who tortures someone because they spit in the face of his favorite teacher, or enslaves someone to help him rob a bank.

 

[TomPiltoff]

What about if we object to Harry’s use of torture and choose not to let our kids read books about where the use of torture, and enslavement methods is done by the supposed ‘hero’ with impunity.

The use of Magic, I have no objection to, as we can find that in the Wizard of Oz and the Lord of the Rings.

But I would rather my kids read about Bilbo and Frodo, who show mercy to Golum, instead of Harry, who tortures someone because they spit in the face of his favorite teacher, or enslaves someone to help him rob a bank.

The Lord of the Rings? You want to talk about when Frodo puts a sword to his best friends neck over the temptation of The Ring?

It’s all besides the point.

Harry Potter is not harmful to children, period. I mean, do you really, truly think the message that kids are going to take from the books is that torture is OK?

 

[Brendan]

The Lord of the Rings? You want to talk about when Frodo puts a sword to his best friends neck over the temptation of The Ring?

Correct, and he repented and apologized. That’s what characterized a good moral lesson. That we are not perfect, but that, we they fall, we repent and seek not to do it again. Simple.

When did Harry apologize to Carrow for torturing him, or even express regret or remorse? Was Harry ever punished for using an illegal spell? How come he used the Imperious charm over and over again during the break in at Grimgotts? Does that show repentance? Or does it show that enslavement is OK, as long as you are doing a good act?

It’s all besides the point.

Harry Potter is not harmful to children, period. I mean, do you really, truly think the message that kids are going to take from the books is that torture is OK?

Why not, Harry does it as part of revenge, I see a lot of kids cheering Harry for zapping Carrow. They think nothing of it. It also barely registers with them that Aurors can also use the torture charm…great…State sponsored torture. But it’s all OK , because it’s being used to defeat ‘evil’.

That’s why this book is morally terrible, it teaches that morality is defined by intent.

It says that ‘good’ can use evil means to obtain an objective.

 

[TomPiltoff]

Why not, Harry does it as part of revenge, I see a lot of kids cheering Harry for zapping Carrow. They think nothing of it. It also barely registers with them that Aurors can also use the torture charm…great…State sponsored torture. But it’s all OK , because it’s being used to defeat ‘evil’.

That’s why this book is morally terrible, it teaches that morality is defined by intent.

It says that ‘good’ can use evil means to obtain an objective.

The thing that boggles the mind, though, is that you’re talking about YOUR kids.

You must have zero confidence in both your skills as a parent and your childs ability to tell right from wrong if you truly believe that all of the moral foundation you’ve set up will crumble due to Harry Potter doing something bad.

 

[Brendan]

The thing that boggles the mind, though, is that you’re talking about YOUR kids.

You must have zero confidence in both your skills as a parent and your childs ability to tell right from wrong if you truly believe that all of the moral foundation you’ve set up will crumble due to Harry Potter doing something bad.

As a priest friend told me “Life’s short, don’t read junk”

Why should I have them waste their time on a story that has little moral benefit, should it allow it simply on ‘entertainment’ grounds alone? I agree that the stories are entertaining. But that brings up the point ‘So What’

Is it my job as a parent to see that my children are simply ‘entertained’, or is it something more than that?

If there is material out there that both has a morality consistent with the Church’s teachings as well as being entertaining, should I not give them that instead?

Such material exists,( I’d even say the first two books of Harry Potter even fall into that categrory). But if I want to keep my kids entertained, I’ll give them something that also echos the morality they hear from the Church.

 

[TomPiltoff]

As a priest friend told me “Life’s short, don’t read junk”

Why should I have them waste their time on a story that has little moral benefit, should it allow it simply on ‘entertainment’ grounds alone? I agree that the stories are entertaining. But that brings up the point ‘So What’

Is it my job as a parent to see that my children are simply ‘entertained’, or is it something more than that?

If there is material out there that both has a morality consistent with the Church’s teachings as well as being entertaining, should I not give them that instead?

Such material exists,( I’d even say the first two books of Harry Potter even fall into that categrory). But if I want to keep my kids entertained, I’ll give them something that also echos the morality they hear from the Church.

Why does every second of your life have to be a moral issue? One of my favorite movies is Pulp Fiction. Zero moral value, but wholly entertaining. And I never once have wanted to shoot anybody.

 

[adrift]

Why does every second of your life have to be a moral issue? One of my favorite movies is Pulp Fiction. Zero moral value, but wholly entertaining. And I never once have wanted to shoot anybody.

Because that is the purpose of our earthly life.
You don’t want to shoot anyone so that takes care of it?
There is no violence in our society? Children go to school without any worry they might be killed? They can stay out until midnight playing hide-seek without fear of being molested or shot?

In the sixties, this was true but it is not true anymore
You can’t base the effect this will have on society but you can observe the effect of violent and sex movies have had on society.

 

[TomPiltoff]

Because that is the purpose of our earthly life.

OK, that’s where we’re going to have to agree to disagree. I don’t think fun should always involve a lesson.

 

[adrift]

OK, that’s where we’re going to have to agree to disagree. I don’t think fun should always involve a lesson.

Agreed but fun should always be moral.

 

[Brendan]

OK, that’s where we’re going to have to agree to disagree. I don’t think fun should always involve a lesson.

But if I can provide fun for my kids while providing a moral lesson, why should I not do that?

There is plenty of fun, well written, entertaining fiction that presents good moral lessons.

There is also plenty of fun, well written, entertaining fiction that is morally problematic.

The choice for my kids is pretty simple.

If you are giving these books to your kids simply to entertain them and keep them out of your hair for awhile, fine. Kinda sad, but fiine. Probably better than tv.

If you are giving HP books to your kids because it’s the only way to get them to read, consider changing schools; it means either your kids teacher is either incompetent, or else your kids are hopeless. You choose which.

 

[TomPiltoff]

But if I can provide fun for my kids while providing a moral lesson, why should I not do that?

It’s not that I’m saying you shouldn’t do that, it’s that I personally do not feel that your issue with Harry Potter warrants not making the books available to your kids.

If you are giving these books to your kids simply to entertain them and keep them out of your hair for awhile, fine. Kinda sad, but fiine. Probably better than tv.

Don’t suggest that.

When I was a kid my mom let me read whatever I wanted to. I usually read Star Wars books, but I read a lot of Stephen King as well. It didn’t matter to her what I read, only that I was engaging in a healthy activity like reading.

She knew that my moral compass wouldn’t for a second be off, and never once did it occur to me that the things I was reading were automatically acceptable in the real world.

If you are giving HP books to your kids because it’s the only way to get them to read, consider changing schools; it means either your kids teacher is either incompetent, or else your kids are hopeless. You choose which.

If the only way I could get my kids to read was Harry Potter I’d know it was my responsibility as a parent, not the schools.

And, uh, isn’t calling your kids ‘hopeless’ for only wanting to read Harry Potter a little dramatic?

 

[Brendan]

It’s not that I’m saying you shouldn’t do that, it’s that I personally do not feel that your issue with Harry Potter warrants not making the books available to your kids.

Why not? We’re talking about a supposed ‘hero’ that tortures people for revenge, or even for spitting on someone.

My kids do not lack for reading material, so why should I include a morally problematic work when I clearly do not need to.

You seem to think that it’s some sort of imperative thing for me in include H.P in my kids library. Why? what are they to gain from reading them that they cannot get elsewhere?

Don’t suggest that.

When I was a kid my mom let me read whatever I wanted to. I usually read Star Wars books, but I read a lot of Stephen King as well. It didn’t matter to her what I read, only that I was engaging in a healthy activity like reading.

Reading is a health neutral thing, it depends on what one is reading, not simply on the fact that one IS reading. If that was true, a parent could give their kids copies of Penthouse Forum or Lady Chatterly’s Lover and consider it to be a healthy thing to do, when it is clearly not.

She knew that my moral compass wouldn’t for a second be off, and never once did it occur to me that the things I was reading were automatically acceptable in the real world.

I presume you also could have read Lady Chatterly’s Lover without thinking that adultery is acceptable in the real world, that doesn’t mean that someone (anyone) should read that book. So yes, what one reads DOES affect one’s outlook on life and morals.

If the only way I could get my kids to read was Harry Potter I’d know it was my responsibility as a parent, not the schools.

And, uh, isn’t calling your kids ‘hopeless’ for only wanting to read Harry Potter a little dramatic?

I didn’t claim MY kids were hopless, I didn’t even claim that about your kids specifically, only as a if\case hen; what I was saying is if parents give their kids Harry Potter books because that is the only thing they would read, it means that the kids are either badly educated or badly raised, probably both,

 

[TomPiltoff]

Why not? We’re talking about a supposed ‘hero’ that tortures people for revenge, or even for spitting on someone.

My kids do not lack for reading material, so why should I include a morally problematic work when I clearly do not need to.

You seem to think that it’s some sort of imperative thing for me in include H.P in my kids library. Why? what are they to gain from reading them that they cannot get elsewhere?

I’m not at all pushing for Harry Potter to be read. I could care less.

What I don’t understand or agree with is the deliberate exclusion of it.

Reading is a health neutral thing, it depends on what one is reading, not simply on the fact that one IS reading. If that was true, a parent could give their kids copies of Penthouse Forum or Lady Chatterly’s Lover and consider it to be a healthy thing to do, when it is clearly not.

Not true.

Reading is a healthy activity. Would you rather your kids be playing Halo 3? Or watching a movie? Or reading?

Children should be encouraged to read.

And don’t try to create arguments that you know don’t hold water. Giving your child a choice of what they’d like to read does not at all equal giving them pornography.

I presume you also could have read Lady Chatterly’s Lover without thinking that adultery is acceptable in the real world, that doesn’t mean that someone (anyone) should read that book. So yes, what one reads DOES affect one’s outlook on life and morals.

Wait, you made no point. You presume I could have read a book dealing with adultery without thinking it was acceptable…and you’re CORRECT. So what’s the problem?

You’re equating reading about morally ambiguous characters with giving children sexual material. It’s not the same thing at all.

Letting a kid read a Stephen King novel is trusting that he won’t go commit murders. It’s a matter of knowing that reading is entertainment, not a parent whom the kid is going to listen to.

Letting a child read a book about sex is simply inappropriate.

I didn’t claim MY kids were hopless, I didn’t even claim that about your kids specifically, only as a if\case hen; what I was saying is if parents give their kids Harry Potter books because that is the only thing they would read, it means that the kids are either badly educated or badly raised, probably both,

I know you weren’t talking about your kids or mine, but to call any children hopeless because they only want to read Harry Potter?

 

[Brendan]

I’m not at all pushing for Harry Potter to be read. I could care less.

What I don’t understand or agree with is the deliberate exclusion of it.

It’s morally problematic. The main character uses torture and enslavement as a means to an end. And did so with no repentance or consequences.

Not true.

Reading is a healthy activity. Would you rather your kids be playing Halo 3? Or watching a movie? Or reading?

Children should be encouraged to read.

That’s like saying eating chocolate is a healty activity. Eating is certainly necessary for life and bring in vitamins, protein etc…
But like eating junk, reading junk is actually detrimental to our health.

And no, I don’t let my kids play Halo for exactly the same reason I don’t let them read Potter. It’s junk. I want only good thinhs for my kids.

And don’t try to create arguments that you know don’t hold water. Giving your child a choice of what they’d like to read does not at all equal giving them pornography.

My point was that reading does not equal healthy. Reading junk is just that, junk.

Could you explain how Harry’s torture is morally superior to L. Chatterly’s adultery?

Wait, you made no point. You presume I could have read a book dealing with adultery without thinking it was acceptable…and you’re CORRECT. So what’s the problem?

If kids can, like you, seperate the morally problematic aspects of the main character, (and they are reading, which is healthy) then there is no real difference between giving your kids Potter, or giving them Chatterly.

You’re equating reading about morally ambiguous characters with giving children sexual material. It’s not the same thing at all.

OK, giving kids books that involve torture is OK, but sex is out. Interesting…

Letting a kid read a Stephen King novel is trusting that he won’t go commit murders. It’s a matter of knowing that reading is entertainment, not a parent whom the kid is going to listen to.

So would Chatterly be acceptable to you? I’m sure they won’t go out and commit adultery, and I’m sure they would find it entertaining, and the WOULD be reading.

Letting a child read a book about sex is simply inappropriate.

And Harry torturing Carrow IS acceptable? Why so? We both admit that they would not go out and torture someone, in much the same way that they would not enter into an adulterous relationship over Chatterly. Yet you accept one but not the other…

I know you weren’t talking about your kids or mine, but to call any children hopeless because they only want to read Harry Potter?

Note that I clarified to ‘badly raised’. And that is true, children should have a love of reading that is seperate from a particular genre.

 

[TomPiltoff]

It’s morally problematic. The main character uses torture and enslavement as a means to an end. And did so with no repentance or consequences.

And? What is the result of that? Are your kids going to suddenly believe that torture is OK?

That’s like saying eating chocolate is a healty activity. Eating is certainly necessary for life and bring in vitamins, protein etc…
But like eating junk, reading junk is actually detrimental to our health.

But I would contend that a certain amount of junk is just enjoying life. At a young age, any reading is good reading (within reason. Harry Potter = within reason, Hustler = not within reason).

When it gets to the point that those children are 45 years old and only reading kids books, yes, it’s a problem.

And no, I don’t let my kids play Halo for exactly the same reason I don’t let them read Potter. It’s junk. I want only good thinhs for my kids.

I think you’re shielding your kids too much. But that’s just my opinion, I’m in no place to judge.

My point was that reading does not equal healthy. Reading junk is just that, junk.

And do you not eat unhealthy foods every now and again as a treat to yourself?

Could you explain how Harry’s torture is morally superior to L. Chatterly’s adultery?

No, because it isn’t. But a child can understand the concept of torture. You really want to open the can of worms that comes along with a kid reading a passage of sexual intercourse?

If kids can, like you, seperate the morally problematic aspects of the main character, (and they are reading, which is healthy) then there is no real difference between giving your kids Potter, or giving them Chatterly.

Yes there is because interest and knowledge in sex is something that comes later in their mental development.

OK, giving kids books that involve torture is OK, but sex is out. Interesting…

Basically, yes.

You’re trying to make it sound like I’m offering kids a choice between ‘How To Torture Things Vol. 1’ and ‘Doggy Style & You’.

No.

Harry Potter is not a series ABOUT torture. There’s a passage in one of the seven books where it is used.

So would Chatterly be acceptable to you? I’m sure they won’t go out and commit adultery, and I’m sure they would find it entertaining, and the WOULD be reading.

I wouldn’t let my kids read Chatterly because it’s basically porn in the written word. I’d let them read a Stephen King novel that featured a sex scene, sure. Though I’d understand and respect if some parents wouldn’t.

And Harry torturing Carrow IS acceptable? Why so? We both admit that they would not go out and torture someone, in much the same way that they would not enter into an adulterous relationship over Chatterly. Yet you accept one but not the other…

Because Chatterly is ABOUT SEX. It’s the point of the work. Potter offers so many positive messages that I’m not going to be worried about ONE PASSAGE.

 

[Brendan]

And? What is the result of that? Are your kids going to suddenly believe that torture is OK?

Probably to the same extent that a teen reading Chatterly will think that adultery is OK?

But I would contend that a certain amount of junk is just enjoying life. At a young age, any reading is good reading (within reason. Harry Potter = within reason, Hustler = not within reason).

And my point is, there is LOTS of really good stuff out there, so why bother with Harry.

I think you’re shielding your kids too much. But that’s just my opinion, I’m in no place to judge.

I give them lots of great reading material. Are you now saying that I should specifically ADD morally objectionable stuff into my kid’s day?

And do you not eat unhealthy foods every now and again as a treat to yourself?

If there’s something as equally tasty that’s healthy for me? No.

No, because it isn’t. But a child can understand the concept of torture. You really want to open the can of worms that comes along with a kid reading a passage of sexual intercourse?

A child can understand the concept of loneliness and the need for companionship in Chatterly as well. If there is adultery involved, it’s only fiction, right? It’s not like the kids will jump into bed with someone’s lonely wife, right? It’s junk, but sometimes junk ‘tastes good’ right? Aren’t those your arguments?

Yes there is because interest and knowledge in sex is something that comes later in their mental development.

Basically, yes.

You’re trying to make it sound like I’m offering kids a choice between ‘How To Torture Things Vol. 1’ and ‘Doggy Style & You’.

So if there was an intercourse scene between Harry and Ginny Weasesly in the books, that would be fine with you?

No.

Harry Potter is not a series ABOUT torture. There’s a passage in one of the seven books where it is used.

Actually, it in TWO books, Three if you include the Aurors using it was well, and then there is the enslavement done several times in the last book.

I wouldn’t let my kids read Chatterly because it’s basically porn in the written word. I’d let them read a Stephen King novel that featured a sex scene, sure. Though I’d understand and respect if some parents wouldn’t.

And what if someone on a message board tried to tell you that it really wasn’t about sex, but rather a woman’s struggle with loneliness and the need for loving, human contact?

So you would understand about objections to a sex scene in a book, but not a torture scene? If a parent objects to torture scenes, even one, (as well as not owning an XBox), then the parent is doing too much shielding? That’s an interesting premise.

 

[TomPiltoff]

Probably to the same extent that a teen reading Chatterly will think that adultery is OK?

I’ve pointed out why they’re too different to lump together.

And my point is, there is LOTS of really good stuff out there, so why bother with Harry.

And again, I’m not campaigning for Harry Potter to be added to every kids reading list. I just still do not understand why you would specifically say ‘no Harry Potter in my house’ due to the scene in question.

By the way, I asked my boss at work about this subject as he’s an avid reader of the Potter books. He said the torture scene was written as a clear case of desperation. Harry didn’t want to torture him but had to stop something terrible from happening, and certainly didn’t want to kill him.

I don’t want to turn this into an even bigger issue, but I guess I can assume you’re opposed to waterboarding?

I give them lots of great reading material. Are you now saying that I should specifically ADD morally objectionable stuff into my kid’s day?

As I’ve said for, I believe, the third time now, no.

If there’s something as equally tasty that’s healthy for me? No.

Come on, you’ve never enjoyed a Snickers bar knowing full well it’s bad for you?

It only becomes bad when you’re eating Snickers for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

A child can understand the concept of loneliness and the need for companionship in Chatterly as well. If there is adultery involved, it’s only fiction, right? It’s not like the kids will jump into bed with someone’s lonely wife, right? It’s junk, but sometimes junk ‘tastes good’ right? Aren’t those your arguments?

The Chatterly argument is just not parallel. Chatterly is garbage for horny old housewives to read. There’s no redeeming qualities in it. To even suggest that the questionable content percentage in Chatterly to Potter is similar is ridiculous.

Yes there is because interest and knowledge in sex is something that comes later in their mental development.

Yes, it comes later. Meaning it is not appropriate for children when described in great detail.

So if there was an intercourse scene between Harry and Ginny Weasesly in the books, that would be fine with you?

Not if it was blatant. If Rowling inserted a sentence or two that was written ambiguously enough for adults to pick up on, then it isn’t a big deal.

And what if someone on a message board tried to tell you that it really wasn’t about sex, but rather a woman’s struggle with loneliness and the need for loving, human contact?

I’d tell them they are clearly wrong because Chatterly revolves around sex. That’s the entire point. They start with sex and then wrap a cheesy story around it.

Would you believe the statement ‘Harry Potter revolves around torture. That’s the entire point. They start with torture and then wrap a cheesy story around it.’ to be accurate?

So you would understand about objections to a sex scene in a book, but not a torture scene? If a parent objects to torture scenes, even one, (as well as not owning an XBox), then the parent is doing too much shielding? That’s an interesting premise.

It’s all about context, as with everything else.

To compare the blatant sex of Chatterly with Harry Potter is nuts, IMO.

 

[sevenmansions]

… if moderate Christians sit back and let the paranoid folks dominate Christian discourse about books and culture, then that section of Christianity wins.

Questioning the moral value of a work and challenging those who defend it does not make one paranoid. “Sections” in Christianity? Now that’s paranoia…

it tortures…Christian young people and drives many of them away from the Faith;

Assuming that by “it” you mean questioning the moral value of a work or discouraging people from taking it in, I consider it beneficial to encourage everyone to examine their consciences and to practice discernment in how they spend their time.

it causes non-Christians to believe that the “Harry haters” speak for Christians as a whole.

I wish. Anyway, many dislike when socially accepted concepts are challenged. It certainly was so in Jesus’ day.

I was referring to your argument that if we respond to vitriolic, obsessive attacks on HP…we are somehow the ones guilty of overreaction… In other words, you want to silence those who disagree with the anti-HP folks…

Speaking of paranoia…It may surprise you that I’m not out to “silence” anyone, nor is the Church. There’s no conspiracy here, no Organization for the Suppression of Literature.

…this is not about Harry Potter alone–it’s about how Christians read. Do we read with a hermeneutic of suspicion, or a hermeneutic of generosity?..in certain respects I think our lives do depend on that question. A hermeneutic of suspicion poisons the soul, and if I had not freed myself from it it would have driven me away from Christianity, or made me a twisted, cynical, bitter person…

I say our lives depend on the choices we make and on our ability to discern. What is your method of discernment? Isn’t it wiser to balance caution and generosity? Could your torment arise from an excess of zeal on one side or the other?

I have a problem with people who say that Christians are bound in conscience to stay away from HP as dangerous to the Faith…the real issue here is how Christians read in general, not HP in particular.

Forgive me, but you sound paranoid again. It’s appropriate for everyone to read with discerment. It’s important for parents to guide children and to accept guidance from the Church when discerning what could be healthy or toxic for their developing souls. I’ll explain to you why I left the Episcopal church (and soon after reverted to the RCC).
As a member of the vestry, I became involved with choosing a new rector. Excited and dutiful, we started interviewing candidates from around the world. I went about this with joy AND generosity. All was proceeding nicely until one of the candidates who had been flown in came to lunch with the vestry. He began talking about a book he’d read by a former Catholic priest that denied the deity of Jesus. He very theatrically expressed disbelief over the fact that the priest had been excommunicated for writing the book. I seemed to be the only one in disbelief that he would find this strange. Later that day, he expressed belief in this and other heretical ideas (no resurrection, no hell, no atonement for sins through Christ). I was lonely and in deep distress over this (the rest of the vestry thought it was no big deal). The more I researched, the more bishops and rectors with uncontested funky ideas I found within the Episcopal church. The man was hired as rector and, saddened, I left the Episcopal church for good. I found guidance and consistency (and the Eucharist!) in the RCC.
I believe that that poor rector’s heresies took shape through a lack of caution that made him unable to distinguish truth from lies. He probably just opened himself up to any writings or ideas (generosity, you call it?) until he became a heretic. Thank God the RCC practices discernment and shares what it’s learned with the faithful! That’s what the Church is for!

And that’s the real issue. Your position is understandable, but it is disastrously, horrifyingly wrong.

Awfully dualistic (Manichaeanistic?) of you to say that…

Caution kills, when it comes to matters of the soul. In fact, caution is heretical. It’s a form of Manichaeanism.

A forced conclusion, if ever there was one. Caution kills. Please. Caution may have kept that rector from falling away. Caution may keep my childrens’ souls healthy. But feel free to experiment with your own kids if you have them.

Edwin

 

[jmcrae]

From reading the above, one might conclude that Harry Potter was on a level with the writings of Bishop Spong, or the Jesus Seminar.

It’s a kid’s book, with magic in it. If your child brings it home to read, talk to him about it, but don’t freak out - it’s just Peter Pan, except he’s at boarding school.

 

[sevenmansions]

From reading the above, one might conclude that Harry Potter was on a level with the writings of Bishop Spong, or the Jesus Seminar.

It’s a kid’s book, with magic in it. If your child brings it home to read, talk to him about it, but don’t freak out - it’s just Peter Pan, except he’s at boarding school.

Actually, if you’d read less superficially, you would have realized that the person to whom I was responding had begun advancing arguments about what and how Christians should read in general, aside from HP. His concerns were pretty clearly stated and I was obviously addressing these concerns. I can’t see how you could reduce his or my comments exclusively to HP, yes, or HP, no. Unless, of course, you were reading with strong bias against anyone not in favor of the books.