Pro-Potter or Anti-Potter?

[estesbob]

I’m curious. Those who say that Rowlings announcement that Dumbledore is gay has ruined the series for you; would your reaction have been the same if she said he’d had a variety of female partners? Or a live-in girlfriend? Once had an affair with a married woman? How about if she just said he had a girlfriend? I’ve not seen anything to suggest that she believes in chastity before marriage. Are promiscuity, fornication, and adultery not as sinful as SSA? Is there any less of a campaign to make these sins socially acceptable?

Those who condemn the books because Dumbledore is supposedly gay are the same ones who condemned the book before Rowling expressed her opinion on his sexuality. As I pointed out before this type of gross overreaction makes it very difficult for us to put out the word about truly harmful books Like “The Golden Compass” Having seen the gross distortion of the Potter books why would anybody take our word on the Golden compass?

 

[Melissa]

Those who condemn the books because Dumbledore is supposedly gay are the same ones who condemned the book before Rowling expressed her opinion on his sexuality. As I pointed out before this type of gross overreaction makes it very difficult for us to put out the word about truly harmful books Like “The Golden Compass” Having seen the gross distortion of the Potter books why would anybody take our word on the Golden compass?

Exactly!

I think in time, the whole bit about Dumbledore’s alleged sexual inclinations will fade into utter unimportance. There is nothing to support this supposition in the text of the novels, so when the statement is forgotten, it won’t come out of reading the novels themselves.

But having been willing to wildly misrepresent the Harry Potter novels in order to condemn them makes condemnation of other novels–Da Vinci Code, Golden Compass, and whatever else might come along–suspect. People who were willing to lie (claiming then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s thank-you note to a writer of an anti-HP book = papal condemnation of the series), misrepresent (putting Voldemort-via-Quirrel’s words into Harry’s mouth), and distort (equating the witchcraft of the novels w/ real life occult practice) with one series of books–why should anyone believe that they’re being honest now?

That’s not to say that everyone has to read (or enjoy) the novels. I’ve never claimed that, and I don’t know anyone who does enjoy the novels who claims that they ought to be on a ‘must read’ list for everyone. But I do think think anyone who wants to criticize a book (or series of books) ought to read the actual texts so as to at least be sure that any second-hand or third-hand sources aren’t misrepresenting what’s written–and that goes for all such books/series.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I don’t fit any of the categories of the poll.
Nor, I admit, have I read the 80 posts preceding this.

I am not unsure about Potter.

I am not anti-Potter.

I am not pro-Potter. If people want to read the books or watch the movies, that is their business. But I do not say “Everyone must read these.” If you don’t want to, I wouldn’t force you.

What position I do find myself in, is anti-anti-Potter. Just as I would never dream of forcing anyone who considers himself anti-Potter to read the books, I likewise believe they err if they say *no one should read these books *(On the basis of subject matter). That is just dumb.

I suppose by the same token, I am anti-pro-Potter – In just the same way, if anyone says *everyone should read these books *-- That is likewise dumb.

And that is my :twocents:,
tee

 

[Baptista]

I don’t fit any of the categories of the poll.
Nor, I admit, have I read the 80 posts preceding this.

I am not unsure about Potter.

I am not anti-Potter.

I am not pro-Potter. If people want to read the books or watch the movies, that is their business. But I do not say “Everyone must read these.” If you don’t want to, I wouldn’t force you.

What position I do find myself in, is anti-anti-Potter. Just as I would never dream of forcing anyone who considers himself anti-Potter to read the books, I likewise believe they err if they say *no one should read these books *(On the basis of subject matter). That is just dumb.

I suppose by the same token, I am anti-pro-Potter – In just the same way, if anyone says *everyone should read these books *-- That is likewise dumb.

And that is my :twocents:,
tee

tee, I am in the pro-Potter camp, for want of a better term. I have never said that everyone should read these books, nor would I say that about any book. What I feel (and the other pro-Potter people feel, I think) is that if someone is going to call a book or whatever evil they should have some first-hand knowledge of that book. Many (not all) have never read a HP book for him/herself. They take another’s word for what it contains. Maybe they trust this person. But maybe this person got their knowledge second or third hand also.

See, by this set of rules, someone could say “Gee, that Baptista is really an evil person. You don’t want to know her. She’s done such and such sinful things.” And just go around passing it on. Before you know it, everyone thinks I’m a terrible person…UNLESS they happen to know me. (or maybe they still think I’m terrible, but at least it would be from first-hand knowledge. )

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*I don’t CARE if he’s “gay”…!

I simply want to know how he feels about him having either performed, or not performed, homosexual-sex-acts with an “attracted to” person.

While I’ll grant that authors are often “surprised” by their creation’s attributes, authors are still in control OF those attributes and the results of those attributes.

Until JK tells me whether Dumbledore has been unremorsefully unchaste (a bad thing), or not (a good thing), I’m left not being able to recommend Dumbledore as a good example of a person, which he is offered as by the author, and by extension am left unable to support JK’s works as healthy for children.

Are you prepared to recommend a work put forward as a children’s morality tale where a main character is unrepentantly immoral…?

Since I don’t know WHETHER the author will put me in the position of suggesting that IMMORALITY is MORAL,… I can’t take the chance that I will have “slipped the bomb under the nursery door” by doing so…!

Is that REALLY so hard to accept as my reasoning?*

Yes it is. To be honest it is the typical gross overeaction we have seen from the day the first book came out. And the problem to me is after 12 years of yelling wolf when people tell me the Golden Compass should be avoided my first reaction is to ignore them.

My friend…

I like the HP stories. I have no problem with the magic.

I have a problem with the POSSIBLE promotion of homosexual-sex-acts, or tolerance of same, that JK interjected into her supposedly-completed work.

It would be nice if knee-jerk “liberals” would actually listen to what their conversation partners are telling them.

You’re going to support whatever it is you support, and that is of course your right, but you show your “Catholic Belief Affinity Rating” quite nicely by your commentary on this issue, and the “Golden Compass” issue.

Best to you.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[estesbob]

My friend…

I have a problem with the POSSIBLE promotion of homosexual-sex-acts, or tolerance of same, that JK interjected into her supposedly-completed work.

 

[Keikiolu]

I’m curious. Those who say that Rowlings announcement that Dumbledore is gay has ruined the series for you; would your reaction have been the same if she said he’d had a variety of female partners?

If Dumbledore was unchaste, he’d be a “bad guy”.

If Dumbledore was unchaste with a man and permanently repentant, he’d be a really bad guy who changed into a good guy.

If Dumbledore was unchaste with a man and unrepentant, he’d be a really really bad guy.

Or a live-in girlfriend? Once had an affair with a married woman? How about if she just said he had a girlfriend? I’ve not seen anything to suggest that she believes in chastity before marriage. Are promiscuity, fornication, and adultery not as sinful as SSA? Is there any less of a campaign to make these sins socially acceptable?

SSA is not sinful…!!

Homosexual-sex-acts are sinful.

You might want to get that straight (pardon the double entendre) on that before,… well,… before.

Has there been any promotion of sex before marriage in JK’s “children’s” works…!?

If so, then there’s another good reason to not call them “children’s works”, and exclude them from good Catholic children’s education.

There’s a massive difference between NOT including any hints of man-woman unchastity, and SAYING EXPLICITLY that one of the main “good guy” characters MIGHT be a practicing homosexual-sex-act SSA sufferer.

To simply state that soneone is SSA implies that it’s VERY possible that he/she practices homosexual-sex-acts.

Like it or not, that’s the way it is.

How you deal with that is a measure of your thinking on the entire promotion of homosexual-sex-acts issue as it relates to Catholic morals.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
I have a problem with the POSSIBLE promotion of homosexual-sex-acts, or tolerance of same, that JK interjected into her supposedly-completed work.

Where in her books are homosexual acts promoted

Nowhere that I know of. But when she states that Dumbledore is SSA she implies that it’s possible that he could be an unrepentant unchaste-with-men SSA sufferer.

Until she clarifies that uncertainty, her work is liable to lead children astray, as they may (some WILL) seize on any and every oppportunity to justify being “OK WITH” their SSA by pointing to the “good example” of Dumbledore.

Quote:
It would be nice if knee-jerk “liberals” would actually listen to what their conversation partners are telling them.

Well Ive been outed. how very perceptive of you to realize i am a knee jerk liberal

Quote:
You’re going to support whatever it is you support, and that is of course your right, but you show your “Catholic Belief Affinity Rating” quite nicely by your commentary on this issue, and the “Golden Compass” issue.

OK-Ill bite -what is a Catholic afinity rating?

Let me put it this way…

If you can convince yourself to support the Golden Compass, then you’re “RATING” is VERY VERY low…!

If you can allow children to use JK’s now “tainted” works to justify acting on, or “being OK with”, their SSA inclinations, then your “RATING” has dropped a bit, but not nearly as badly as with a “Golden Compass” approval.

Does that answer your questions?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[jmcrae]

The thing with Dumbledore is quite recent, but the out-of-control paranoia about Harry Potter has been going on ever since the first book came out - it has nothing whatsoever to do with Dumbledore’s suppposed sexual orientation (which never actually comes up in the books themselves).

 

[Elmtree]

Golden Compass, unlike the HP series, IS indeed the work of an avowed atheist whose book exists to tell kids that when they kill God they get to do what they want and be happy.

NOTHING like that ever took place in HP.

I quite agree, but I also agree that the outcry against Harry Potter, which is often based on exaggeration and distortion, can harm our ability to warn people about the Golden Compass. We’ve lost a lot of our credibility, so people will say “oh, those are the folks who fussed about Potter, why ought I listen about this?”

Then again, I think Pullman would have liked the publicity of an outcry, but all the press has been on Potter.

 

[Joe_5859]

I don’t fit any of the categories of the poll.
Nor, I admit, have I read the 80 posts preceding this.

I suppose I should have defined the terms.

By Pro-potter or Anti-Potter, I don’t mean that you actively campaign for or against the books. I only meant that you either like the books or don’t (or that you find serious problems with the books or don’t). Of course, maybe some people do want to campaing one way or the other - that is entirely up to them.

If you vote “Pro-Potter”, there’s no connotation that you would endorse the position that everyone must read the books.

Likewise, if you vote “Anti-Potter”, there’s no connotation that you would endorse the position that everyone must not read the books.

Perhaps I should have included an “Other” option.

 

[estesbob]

Nowhere that I know of. But when she states that Dumbledore is SSA she implies that it’s possible that he could be an unrepentant unchaste-with-men SSA sufferer.

Until she clarifies that uncertainty, her work is liable to lead children astray, as they may (some WILL) seize on any and every oppportunity to justify being “OK WITH” their SSA by pointing to the “good example” of Dumbledore.

Let me put it this way…

If you can convince yourself to support the Golden Compass, then you’re “RATING” is VERY VERY low…!

If you can allow children to use JK’s now “tainted” works to justify acting on, or “being OK with”, their SSA inclinations, then your “RATING” has dropped a bit, but not nearly as badly as with a “Golden Compass” approval.

Does that answer your questions?

.

What is this jeopardy? You gave answers to questions or never asked.

 

[estesbob]

Nowhere that I know of

Okay-case closed

.

But when she states that Dumbledore is SSA she implies that it’s possible that he could be an unrepentant unchaste-with-men SSA sufferer.

How does is follow from your answer above? Dumbledore lives only in books(you know these are fiction don’t you). Since you have admitted he has given no indication whatsoever that he is afflicted with SSA how can you claim he is unrepentant or unchaste.

Until she clarifies that uncertainty, her work is liable to lead children astray, as they may (some WILL) seize on any and every oppportunity to justify being “OK WITH” their SSA by pointing to the “good example” of Dumbledore.

Her books are quite clear. I don’t need any clarification. If she writes another book that explores Dumbledore’s sexuality it would be a different situation altogether.

Let me put it this way…

If you can convince yourself to support the Golden Compass, then you’re “RATING” is VERY VERY low…!

You are the one that is convincing people there is no problem with Golden compass. People read your posts on the Potter books and then read your condemnations of the Golden Compass and ignore your Golden Compass comments as being the same type of gross exaggeration & overreaction you have had for Potter books.

If you can allow children to use JK’s now “tainted” works to justify acting on, or “being OK with”, their SSA inclinations, then your “RATING” has dropped a bit, but not nearly as badly as with a “Golden Compass” approval.

As I said before you’re the one who is convincing people there is nothing wrong with the Golden compass. I suggest you google the story " The boy who cried wolf" You and that boy have a lot in common

Does that answer your questions?

No.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

ouya reay akingema ona ensea

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Can someone please tell me what SSA means? :crying:

 

[peregrinator_it]

I didn’t vote (none of the options apply.)

I suppose I’m also anti-anti-Potter. I don’t think HP is evil or encourages practice of the occult, etc.

IMO, HP is not great literature. (I’ve read most of the books. I find them mediocre, at best; tedious at worst, and I think JK Rowling doesn’t have a handle on how to develop characters.) I can think of lots of better books that I’d encourage a child of mine to read first.

But, HP is hardly the worst thing out there. Anyone who’s darkened the doors of a bookstore recently has seen the SCHLOCK that passes for children’s literature these days! It’s appalling: from way-dumbed-down (less plot than the average TV sitcom) HP knock-offs, to whole books devoted to bathroom humor, to immoral teenage melodramas…

To give you a little perspective on my opinion, I’ll give you my stand on the common tangents to this debate:

→ I don’t think literature has to be overtly Catholic to be good, true, great, or of value to Catholics.

→ I love The Lord of the Rings (books only; movies stank), but I take Tolkein at his word; the stories are not a Catholic allegory.

→ Further, I think allegory is an inferior art form.

→ I don’t like the Narnia Chronicles very much because of their allegorical aspect, and because Lewis’ Protestant theology shows through in the allegory. But I think they are marginally better than Harry Potter (mostly because Lewis is a better writer.)

 

[peregrinator_it]

Can someone please tell me what SSA means? :crying:

Same Sex Attraction

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Same Sex Attraction

Dohhh. I knew that. Yeah.

Thanks.

 

[Joe_5859]

In the “Ask an Apologist” forum, Michelle Arnold did a pretty good job of explaining the whole Dumbledore situation:

Should I care that Dumbledore is gay?

She avoids both extremes of either letting this destroy the series or ignoring it completely.

Some people think it will blow over and no one will even remember this “revelation”. That’s possible, though I think it unlikely that the Gay activists would pass up the opportunity to make such an honorable character into an opportunity to push their agenda. If I were them, I wouldn’t let people forget it!

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

Nowhere that I know of
Okay-case closed

If you don’t take an explicit statement by the author of a work that one of her characters is POSSIBLY a “bad guy”, and you have no problem with exposing children under your charge to a potential bad guy being portrayed as a “good guy”, then your welcome to taking the chance that you may later have to explain to those children why their old friend has gone from a good guy to a bad guy.

Quote:But when she states that Dumbledore is SSA she implies that it’s possible that he could be an unrepentant unchaste-with-men SSA sufferer.
How does is follow from your answer above? Dumbledore lives only in books(you know these are fiction don’t you). Since you have admitted he has given no indication whatsoever that he is afflicted with SSA how can you claim he is unrepentant or unchaste.

If he is GAY, then he is SSA (same-sex-attracted).

PLEASE try to keep up with the facts. Thanks.

Quote:Until she clarifies that uncertainty, her work is liable to lead children astray, as they may (some WILL) seize on any and every oppportunity to justify being “OK WITH” their SSA by pointing to the “good example” of Dumbledore.
Her books are quite clear. I don’t need any clarification. If she writes another book that explores Dumbledore’s sexuality it would be a different situation altogether.

That’s quite right. And in the future if she “fleshes out” the Dumbledore character so as to make him a “bad guy” then you’ve got a possible “retroactive inculcation of homosexual-sex-act promotion problem” to deal with.

My point is that it is now a very good probability that Dumbledore, whom children adore, will use Dumbledore as an excuse to be “OK with” SSA and only slightly less likely that he will be used to justify actual homosexual-sex-act behavior.

Once again,… if you’re willing to take that chance, go for it. I’m not.

Quote:Let me put it this way…

If you can convince yourself to support the Golden Compass, then you’re “RATING” is VERY VERY low…!

You are the one that is convincing people there is no problem with Golden compass. People read your posts on the Potter books and then read your condemnations of the Golden Compass and ignore your Golden Compass comments as being the same type of gross exaggeration & overreaction you have had for Potter books.

You may have come to the conclusion that my reaction to the SSA-Dumbledore controversy is over the top, but I seriously doubt real Catholics come to that same conclusion.

People need to not take my word about anything, but check out the facts. The fact is that JK has potentially set up all children to be influenced to accept homosexual-sex-acts as a good thing because one of their favorite fictional “good guy” characters does it, so why shouldn’t they?

…continued below →

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued from above:

Quote:
If you can allow children to use JK’s now “tainted” works to justify acting on, or “being OK with”, their SSA inclinations, then your “RATING” has dropped a bit, but not nearly as badly as with a “Golden Compass” approval.

As I said before you’re the one who is convincing people there is nothing wrong with the Golden compass.

Uh,… I’m vehemently opposed to the Golden Compass.

You may think otherwise, but that simply exposes your dementia.

I suggest you google the story " The boy who cried wolf" You and that boy have a lot in common

I suggest you look into how the great deceiver works.

If you think that your “love of Pottermania” overrides the fact that they MAY be a direct threat to the morals of children, then you’re welcome to your gamble.

To not point out what I see as a threat would be uncharitable of me.

Quote:
Does that answer your questions?

No.

I don’t ask you to agree with me,… just to actually understand what I’m saying and agree to disagree with me.

Since you are incapable of simple understanding by way of repeated explanation, you’re not worth continuing to explain things to.

When you decide that understanding is more important than “winning”, and you are refusing to “lose” by simply pretending you don’t understand clear explanation, have fun with conversation with children, as adults will find you very annoying.

Quote:
Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

ouya reay akingema ona ensea

That’s interesting…!

What might that mean…?