Talk:Religious debates over the Harry Potter series/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Bible quote in HP7

Is it worth a mention that JKRowling uses a Bible quotation on the grave of Ignotius near Godric's Hollow during the "Deathly Hallows"? The verse is Matthew 6:21 "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also" or indeed Luke 12:34. Could be used to further the point of JK's use of Christian imagery.

Not sure. Unless it can be tied to a secondary source it might be OR to link it to this debate. Serendipodous 13:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a big list of Christian references in the books on this page, and I don't think we should start compiling one; we don't need to insert any novel arguments on behalf of one side or the other.--Pharos 05:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is pretty offensive towards Satanists and Satanism, I see nothing wrong with Satanists66.203.169.145 01:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Mind pointing out what's offensive? We can't improve anything if we don't know what the problem is. --L^augh! 01:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't explain anything from the Satanist's point of view, there's nothing wrong with Satanism, how can it be controversial to accuse the books of promoting it?--66.203.169.229 19:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't claim that Satanism is bad; it claims that the Christian right thinks it is, and that the books, since they supposedly promote it, are therefore bad as well. Serendipodous 19:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Good job on the article, guys.

Coherent and informative. Keep it up. Ichormosquito 05:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey I just want to say something. Im always telling wiccans, "how can your religion be fulfilling when it came from T.V?" and they're always like, "no,no, Harry Potter doesn't have much wicca in it." But the thing is,whether HP is just a wiccaless silly story or not, people become "Wiccans" because of it and I've seen it happen.

Wiccan is nothing like harry potter, but I wouldnt be surprised if a couple peopel converted through Harry potter.Dragon queen4ever 19:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Camp

Is there any particular place in the article where it could be noted how Becky Fischer attacked the books in Jesus Camp? Was that segment noteable enough for a mention at any rate? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Opposition

Has there been any major Jewish opposition to the books? Valley2city 23:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Not that I can see. Indeed, if Google is any guide, Jews seem intent on appropriating Harry as one of their own. Serendipodous 19:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Why the FAC failed

I think I understand why the FAC failed. The root problem is one of WP:UNDUE in that, because of the scope of the article, the focus falls almost entirely on a certain fringe group of conservative Christians. This comes across as unbalanced (though it's certainly unintentional), especially to people who feel that the fringe anti-Potterites "don't represent me" and that giving them this prominence disparages mainstream Christians in some way. And the article is rather more detailed than it has to be on a number of points, focusing on quite minor persons and events for significant stretches. For example (and this is an example I partially contributed to myself), I'm not sure its wholly proportionate to say at least three book burnings, in Alamogordo, New Mexico, Penn Township, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania and Greenville, Michigan, when instead we could be equally informative with several small book burnings full stop (with footnotes to articles on the three cases). But such overly expansive treatment may be necessary when we are dealing with such a small topic. So, how to avoid the "small fish in a small pond" problem? My suggestion is to broaden the pond. Rather than the focus on "Religious opposition", we could expand the topic to cover "Religious views" more broadly, or even better to cover all issues of "Morality" in the Harry Potter books.--Pharos 03:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"Religious views" I can deal with (though it would effectively mean this article would never end). I'd stay away from "morality" though; that's a dangerously subjective word, and immediately implies a judgement on the part of the writer. As a moral relativist (an admittedly unpopular position in this era of Richard Dawkins and Osama bin Laden), I don't think it's possible to objectively discuss issues of morality. Serendipodous 05:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking more of "Morality in Harry Potter" i.e. literary criticism of the treatment of good and evil in the books (which I understand is a major theme—excuse me I'm not actually a Potter fan, I just got interested in this article for some strange reason), rather than "Morality of Harry Potter". That would really marginalize the treatment of the fringe groups, as the majority of the article wouldn't even be about anything "controversial", but then again that would be a very different article.--Pharos 06:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that "morality" would be quite POV. Some people can't see past the witchcraft and sorcery part of the book so no matter how much "good vs. evil" and "making the right decisions", it is still all evil to many. People will fight to the death on this fundamental, believe me. Valley2city 18:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Deathly Hallows addition

Not only was it uncited, it focused entirely on the views of a single person with no attempt to balance the opinion (Tip for the uninitiated: one person stating his opinion is not a controversy; a controversy implies a conflict of views). Secondly, while it drew attention to the critic's claim that God "dies" in Harry Potter, it failed to explain why the critic feels that way, particularly in light of the fact that "Deathly Hallows" contains a blindingly obvious Passion/Resurrection allegory. [1] Serendipodous 06:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit: Located online article, and placed it with secular discussion. Serendipodous 11:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought what Harry goes through in Deathly Hallows had more in common with what happens to Capt. John Sheridan in seasons 3 & 4 of the science fiction series Babylon 5 than any Christian Resurrection story. LamontCranston 9:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I just added a source-filled summary of Christian allegory in Hallows. I tried to find other points of view, but couldn't locate any. The consensus was overwhelmingly Christian. This may change over time, though. Feel free to add to it if you can find any good sources countering this belief. Wrad 01:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of Gloucester Cathedral

Sadly I've moved from the UK now, but at the time the first Harry Potter film was made, the main part of Gloucester Cathedral in England was used. Subsequently a number of stained glass windows were broken in protest. The police eventually arrested and charged members of a fundamentalist Christian group and, if memory serves, gained a conviction for criminal damage. I don't have access any more to the archives of the Gloucester Citizen newspaper, which covered the events, but I do remember it being discussed in the local news media. If someone can find some sources, it might be worth adding details of it here. Just a thought. Whisperwolf 03:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I searched for info on this and found a BBC article about it. Hopefully this will help. --Andrewlp1991 17:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any mentions that a Christian group was responsible though. Serendi^podous 15:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Catholic section

I've extensivly edited and referenced the Catholic section. Are there other issues that need to be addressed in the section, or can the "expert needed" template be removed? Gentgeen 06:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Does mentioning the Biblical quotations qualify as OR?

Rowling makes no overt mention that the quotes are Biblical in origin, and it is possible (though very unlikely) that the concordances are coincidental. Serendi^podous 15:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Most sources I read said that they were obviously biblical, so it isn't OR. These were pretty neutral sources, as well, such as Newsweek and Newsday. I think that to say otherwise would be OR, basing content on personal opinion rather than reputable sources, although if someone can find a similar source stating that they aren't biblical, I wouldn't be opposed to adding that in alongside the others. Wrad 15:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

An earlier para simply stated that Rowling employed Biblical quotes and used the Bible itself as a reference. I've incorporated one of the quotes along with a source explicitly comparing it to Harry Potter into the Deathly Hallows section and removed the paragraph. Serendi^podous 16:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I was wondering what part you were referring to. It wouldn't be correct to say that Rowling said something she didn't say, yes. :) Wrad 20:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I had to fix some recent edits to the Hallows section. A few of them weren't supported by the refs listed, and an important Rowling quote that was the highlight of several reviews of the book was removed. I fixed all of this. I hadto remove one biblical quote comparison without a source. I'll see if I can find a source for it. Wrad 23:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I see that the quote is in the article twice. Wrad 02:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on expanding the intro?

The article has outgrown its intro and it needs to be expanded. Thoughts? Serendi^podous 16:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe three paragraphs, one on allegations, one on challenges, and the last on responses by Rowling and others. Wrad 02:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers??

I don't know if it's really worth adding a spoiler tag, but there's a very major Deathly Hallows spoiler in the Deathly Hallows paragraph. 68.80.168.110 20:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, spoiler tags are deemed unnecessary if the article already makes perfectly clear, as that last section does, that it will discuss the book in detail. Serendi^podous 06:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what else to do

I don't think I can ever make this article acceptable to everyone. No matter how neutral I make it, I'm going to offend somebody. I would like to see this article reach FA level, but I don't think religious people are going to allow it, because they don't want their faith depicted in this way. Serendi^podous 06:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Link 56

One of the most important sources in this article, link 56, is now dead because the page has been shifted to the site's archive. Unfortunately I can't access the archive without paying a fee, so until I can get ahold of it I've linked to a forum cut-and-paste. Hardly a viable substitute, but the information, at least, is there. Serendi^podous 07:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean the AP story on Mallory? It's almost always possible to find another mirror of an AP story, and I've added one (your forum link had already been deleted on their end).--Pharos 22:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see, and I've now fixed the other one too with the Internet Archive#Wayback Machine].--Pharos 23:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Rowling talks about religion in the book

To the main page editors: this report should prove fruitful in the improving of this article. Best, Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 00:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Very nice find. Wrad 04:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Added :-) Serendi^podous 09:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Dumbledore is gay responses

I've garnered a number of responses to this issue, but I'm not sure where to put them. Rowling's responses? Wrad 20:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Bring them over to User talk:Raystorm. We've been gathering them up in preparation for the coming storm, though as yet it still doesn't seem to be coming. It probably should have its own section if it's included, but it's important not to overstate the issue. So far, this revelation has provoked a stronger response from gays and liberals, who were pissed off she didn't have the guts to out him on paper, than from fundies, who already decided the books were evil years ago anyway. Serendi^podous 20:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops, already added it. I actually did find a good bit of religious response, though, as you can see, including a statement by Laura Mallory. Could we move that discussion here? it would be easier for me to keep track of. Wrad 21:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

reworked it with citations from raystorm's talk page. The comment in the addition about Rita Skeeter doesn't seem supported by any sources that I can find, so I took it down. Serendi^podous 22:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone deleted all the religious responses. That's what this article should focus on most! We need them back. I think there were good things about both versions, though, so we should definitely discuss it. Wrad 22:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted two recent edits by Serendipodous because, although they're well sourced, they concentrate overwhelmingly on negative responses to the announcement and thus give a rather one-sided view of the religious debate. We should be careful not to inflate the statements of a few noisy nay-sayers who are critical of a book which is phenomenally successful with many people throughout the world, whether religiously observant or not. --Tony Sidaway 22:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is about religious debates over the Harry Potter series. Of course I would be happy to include positive responses about Dumbledore's sexuality, as long as they are religious responses. So far, I haven't found any, and I've been looking. This section is not merely about the revelation that Dumbledore is gay. Serendi^podous 22:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It's most inappropriate to present a debate in a manner that restricts reporting of responses on an issue of public importance to those opinions expressed only by those who proclaim themselves to be expressing the opinion of their deity. Doing so, as I've indicated, gives a false impression of the nature of the debate. --Tony Sidaway 22:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Most religious people, whatever their stripe, believe themselves to be doing the will of their deity. They wouldn't be religious if they didn't. Since this article deals with the opinions, positive and negative, expressed by religious people over the issues raised by Harry Potter, it is only natural that religious people be presented on this issue. I personally was not in favour of posting this section until a wider range of Christian opinions came online, but I felt that if it was to be posted, it should at least be specific and mention specific responses.Serendi^podous 22:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree at least a little that we should get more positive responses, but I don't know that the current version is too terribly biased. A lot of Christians think it's great, so we should probably highlight that a bit more, if we can find it. I also feel that the new version doesn't explain that the books aren't actually explicit about the issue. This article is about the book series, after all. Wrad 22:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

To be on the safe side, I've inviso-texted the section until this issue is resolved. Serendi^podous 22:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The criteria you're using here guarantee that only the opinions of certain religious extremists will be put into the article. It may be that many religiously observant people don't have a problem with any aspect of the Harry Potter novels, but because they don't have a problem they don't make a statement that gets into print, nor are their opinions sought, thus we're left with an unbalanced article because your criteria for inclusion are flawed. Moreoever the presumption that only religiously observant people are qualified to give an opinion on religious matters also weights the debate unduly. --Tony Sidaway 22:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Dumbledore is gay is not a religious matter. Only the religious response to it is. Homosexuality has nothing to do with religion, anymore than race or gender does. Only how religions react to it. Serendi^podous 22:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly we can include responses to the religious responses. There are plenty of those. Wrad 22:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[outdent]-That wouldn't resolve the issue of anti-religious bias; only turn the section into a "secularism vs. religion" debate. The only way to make the topic neutral is to find positive religious responses to Dumbledore's homosexuality. Serendi^podous 22:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Including responses to religious responses would be a start, though most such responses might amount to "sheesh! fundies!" This is the problem, really. Some religious people take these matters very seriously but if nobody else takes any notice we're misrepresenting their complaints if we call it a "debate".

Given my drothers I'd just reduce the emphasis on matters such as occultism and in particular the pantomime that passes for religious thinking in much of the USA, and more on the Inklings and more on the religious allegories which are really present in many of the novels in the series but are particularly explicit in the final novel. These matter carry much more weight.

Perhaps this sounds a little harsh, but I think we're doing religion a disservice if we're giving the impression that the only religious debates arising from the Harry Potter series are over whether or not it promotes godless paganism and sexual perversion. --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Inklings only make up a tiny fraction of the debate over Harry Potter and religion. The vast majority of the notable events that have occurred vis a vis religion have involved occultism/witchcraft. That's just the way it is. We may be doing religion a disservice by revealing this, but we would be doing reality a disservice by lessening its impact. Serendi^podous 23:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

We are limited to what the sources say. I myself was incredibly greatful when in the third book so many of the Christian symbols came out so strongly. This whole gay thing has just swung things the other direction for Christians who just won't open their eyes at all. Many of these Christians are my friends and even relatives. It's really weird, but it's a huge part of the debate about the series. I literally can't discuss the series at all with a number of my friends because they are absolutely convinced it's evil. Why? That's what this article tries to explain. It also tries to explain the point of view that such ideas are ludicrous. Wrad 23:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

In a world with openly gay priests and openly gay bishops, I think we're seriously overbalancing the article if we're writing so much on negative concerns over Dumbledore's homosexuality, allegations of satanism and whatnot, when it's absolutely clear that this is a non-issue for most religiously observant people. This is akin to writing an article about ufology that gives undue weight to claims of little green men, high level conspiracies, and the like. Good television, as we're aware, but not a good representation of the actual debate.

Moreover Rowling is an English writer. In her home country the allegations of satanism and whatnot are taken even less seriously than in the United States, where the bulk of the fundamentalists live. The Inklings are much more prominent in the context of English religious thinking over Rowling's writing. I fear that we're in danger of letting sensationalist journalism overwhelm and dominate the debate. Good evidence for this is a recent report (cited in the article I believe) over a recent reading in Canada, where members of the invited audience were bombarded with questions about Dumbledore's sexuality both before and after the reading, but the question was not raised throughout the session. --Tony Sidaway 23:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can find more sources for all that, please add it. Wrad 23:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Globally, the Anglican position on anything at all, let alone sexuality, is decidedly a minority view. The fundamentalist position on Harry Potter is more likely to be the view of the majority of religious people worldwide, particularly in third-world countries. This article gives plenty of voice to positive views on the books from religious figures, including fundamentalists. The issue with the Gay Dumbledore is that the backlash hasn't even begun yet. Any positive religious views on the subject won't start appearing until the anti-backlash gets underway, which won't be for a while. Serendi^podous 23:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe let's just list the sources we have, positive, negative, neutral. Wrad 22:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are all my direct sources. None positive so far:

[2][3][http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58299][4] Serendi^podous 23:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

All of mine are negative as well. Perhaps we should just give it some time. Wrad 00:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what Serendipodous means by "the Anglican position", unless he's taking my comment on the Inklings as an expression of sympathy with those writers. I've not trying to assert the predominance of any religious position over any other. However I think it's reasonable to state that the extreme religion-based anti-Harry Potter positions are overwhelmed by the sheer popularity of the books. To state that there's a serious debate about whether Rowling's work is anti-religious is simply false. We've been here before. This is very much like a rerun of the creationism nonsense we used to see hanging around in the fringes of our articles on evolution. --Tony Sidaway 02:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but this isn't an article about evolution, it's an article about religion. And it really isn't that biased at all. If you really read through the article, both sides are presented. To a brit, it may seem a bit weird, but we cover everything here, not just the brits. We say what the sources say. What else can we say? Really, it's not as bad asy you're saying. I think you're looking at all the cultish stuff with a magnifying glass and shrinking the more reasonable things in the article so that you can hardly see them. The article is fine. It presents both sides. It follows the sources. We're talking in circles here... Wrad 02:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The changes

Let's concentrate on the recently expanded section over Dumbledore's sexuality. We had this:

Dumbledore's sexuality

Rowling stated at a fan meeting at Carnegie Hall on October 19, 2007 that Dumbledore was written as a gay character, an announcement which received a standing ovation from the crowd. The issue came up, she said, as she was reviewing the script for the sixth Harry Potter movie, and noticed a scene where Dumbledore recalls a relationship he once had with a woman. She explained that she had always seen Dumbledore as a gay character. This came as a surprise to many, as the only hints to this affect given in the series are Dumbeldore's close friendship with Grindelwald, which Rowling explicitly stated led to Dumbledore's falling in love with him, and Rita Skeeter the tabloid writer's statement that Dumbledore "took an unnatural interest in" Harry Potter (at no point are Skeeter's allegations confirmed in the series). Rowling's announcement caused quite a stir in the debate over the religious nature of the stories. Those who previously argued that the books were anti-Christian in nature, such as Laura Mallory (a book challenger mentioned above), take Rowling's recent statements as proof that their stance is correct. Others argue that Rowling's statement is only her opinion about the text, and that it can be interpreted either way. Still others have applauded her openness about the issue.(ref O'Brient, Kathleen. "THE WORD IS OUT: J.K. Rowling says Dumbledore is gay, but what do fans think?" The Star-Ledger (Newark, New Jersey) October 26, 2007. pg. 43.) (refKloer, Phil. "Dumbledore's gay? A caldron of reactions." The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. October 23, 2007. SECTION: LIVING; Pg. 1E)(ref Burris, Joe. "ALBUS DUMBLEDORE CAST IN A NEW LIGHT; MONTHS AFTER `POTTER' MANIA, AUTHOR SAYS THE WIZARD IS GAY." The Baltimore Sun. October 23, 2007. SECTION: TODAY; Pg. 1C.)(ref Washington, Julie E. "Potter fans do a Dumbledore doubletake." Newhouse News Service. October 23, 2007. SECTION: ENTERTAINMENT.)(ref Italie, Hillel. "Outing gives new meaning to passages about wizard Dumbledore in Harry Potter books." The Associated Press. October 22, 2007. SECTION: BUSINESS NEWS.)

I jumped in and edited it to this. I seem to recall that the main intent was to make the section more readable.

Dumbledore's sexuality

Rowling stated at a fan meeting at Carnegie Hall on October 19, 2007 that Dumbledore was written as a gay character, an announcement which received a standing ovation from the crowd. The issue came up, she said, as she was reviewing the script for the sixth Harry Potter movie, and noticed a scene where Dumbledore recalls a relationship he once had with a woman. She explained that she had always seen Dumbledore as a gay character.

This came as a surprise to most readers, as the only hints to this effect given in the series are Dumbeldore's close friendship with Grindelwald, and Rita Skeeter the tabloid writer's statement that Dumbledore "took an unnatural interest" in Harry Potter (at no point are Skeeter's allegations confirmed in the series).

Rowling's announcement that this close friendship led to Dumbledore's falling in love with Grindelwald caused quite a stir in the debate over the religious nature of the stories. Those who previously argued that the books were anti-Christian in nature, such as Laura Mallory (one of those who tried to have the book banned from schools), take Rowling's recent statements as proof that their stance is correct. Others argue that Rowling's statement is only her opinion about the text, and that it can be interpreted either way. Still others have applauded her openness about the issue. (ref O'Brient, Kathleen. "THE WORD IS OUT: J.K. Rowling says Dumbledore is gay, but what do fans think?" The Star-Ledger (Newark, New Jersey) October 26, 2007. pg. 43.)(ref Kloer, Phil. "Dumbledore's gay? A caldron of reactions." The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. October 23, 2007. SECTION: LIVING; Pg. 1E)(ref Burris, Joe. "ALBUS DUMBLEDORE CAST IN A NEW LIGHT; MONTHS AFTER `POTTER' MANIA, AUTHOR SAYS THE WIZARD IS GAY." The Baltimore Sun. October 23, 2007. SECTION: TODAY; Pg. 1C.)(ref Washington, Julie E. "Potter fans do a Dumbledore doubletake." Newhouse News Service. October 23, 2007. SECTION: ENTERTAINMENT.)(ref Italie, Hillel. "Outing gives new meaning to passages about wizard Dumbledore in Harry Potter books." The Associated Press. October 22, 2007. SECTION: BUSINESS NEWS.)

It was then edited to this.

Dumbledore's sexuality

On 19 October, 2007, Rowling gave a Q&A at New York's Carnegie Hall. When asked by a fan whether Dumbledore, "who believed in the prevailing power of love, ever [fell] in love himself", Rowling replied, "My truthful answer to you... I always thought of Dumbledore as gay. ... Dumbledore fell in love with Grindelwald, and that that added to his horror when Grindelwald showed himself to be what he was ... falling in love can blind us to an extent ... he was very drawn to this brilliant person, and horribly, terribly let down by him."(ref "J. K. Rowling at Carnegie Hall Reveals Dumbledore is Gay; Neville Marries Hannah Abbott, and Much More". 2007. Retrieved 2007-10-27. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |wok= ignored (help))

In a Q&A three days later in Toronto, she responded to questions about Dumbledore's "outing" by saying that she had decided his sexuality "from very early on. Probably before the first book was published," and that, "It is what it is. He is my character and as my character, I have the right to know what I know about him and say what I say about him."(ref "Toronto Press Conference". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 2007. Retrieved 2007-10-27.)

Christians critical of Harry Potter responded enthusiastically to the revelation. "My first response was, 'Thank you, Lord,'" said Christian author Berit Kjos, "because this helps us show others that these books should not be used in the churches to illustrate Christianity. Because Dumbledore has been revealed as a homosexual, it helps me communicate my message. It helps Christians who are concerned about the use of Harry Potter books in churches, because it makes it very clear that these books are not intended to be Christian, that Rowling isn't speaking as a Christian. She has introduced values that are contrary to the Biblical message."^[1] Laura Mallory responded to the news by telling US network ABC, "My prayer is that parents would wake up, that the subtle way this is presented as harmless fantasy would be exposed for what it really is: a subtle indoctrination into anti-Christian values ... A homosexual lifestyle is a harmful one. That's proven, medically."^[2]Linda Harvey, the president of Mission America, an organisation which, "monitors both the homosexual agenda directed at children as well as paganism among American youth,"^[3]</nowiki>

"Will we allow our kids to believe it would be perfectly appropriate for the headmaster of any school to be homosexual?" she asked, "Will some find ways to re-cast homosexuality into something different than the "abomination" it's called in Scripture? Will it become something more like a sad disability, one that the "mean religious right" targets for nefarious purposes?"(ref name=harvey )

O'Brient, Kathleen. "THE WORD IS OUT: J.K. Rowling says Dumbledore is gay, but what do fans think?" The Star-Ledger (Newark, New Jersey) October 26, 2007. pg. 43.

Kloer, Phil. "Dumbledore's gay? A caldron of reactions." The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. October 23, 2007. SECTION: LIVING; Pg. 1E

Burris, Joe. "ALBUS DUMBLEDORE CAST IN A NEW LIGHT; MONTHS AFTER `POTTER' MANIA, AUTHOR SAYS THE WIZARD IS GAY." The Baltimore Sun. October 23, 2007. SECTION: TODAY; Pg. 1C.

Washington, Julie E. "Potter fans do a Dumbledore doubletake." Newhouse News Service. October 23, 2007. SECTION: ENTERTAINMENT.

Now I think the earlier versions had their problems. There was this vague handwaving, "Others argue..." and "still others..." However the later version is simply a piling-on of negative views that are obviously not representative of any kind of religious debate, but only show that there are extremists who will exploit prejudices about sexuality, and there are journalists who will publish what they say. At the same time we're seeing reports of indifference amongst pre-invited fans ("The topic had simply not come up." [5]) We're not seeing this because the Reverend Rentaquote and his litigious flock have been coming out with quite predictable and quite ignorable nonsense. When the only "religious" statements that are being published are the words of the lunatic fringe, we should not feel obliged to give undue prominence to that fringe. --Tony Sidaway 03:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not that bad. The first part of the third paragraph in the last example highlights a positive religious reaction. Again, you seem to be magnifying the problem beyond what it actually is. Wrad 03:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. The enthusiasm was more do to with the fact that it confirmed what the Potter-bashers had been saying all along. A lot were happy because they felt it proved them right. Yes. It is very negative. Which is why I didn't want to post this section in the first place; there aren't enough published reactions to create a comprehensive, balanced report. There may be in the future, but not now. Serendi^podous 07:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reinstated it

The Christian Coalition and Pat Robertson have weighed in. These aren't Reverend Rentaquote; these are the heavy hitters. They got George Bush elected. Serendi^podous 17:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should add one more source highlighting a positive reaction to the idea that he's gay. Wrad 17:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

From whom though? Serendi^podous 17:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter much, religious or non-religious. Wrad 18:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The Christian Coalition and Pat Robertson are precisely the kind of populists to whom I would emphatically refer as "The Reverend Rentaquote". I think there's a serious difference of opinion here over what constitutes a religious debate and the statements of those quasi-political factions that are quite common in the United States. We are giving far, far too much prominence to a small faction of evangelical extremists whose views are largely irrelevant to the broader dialogue of their respective churches. --Tony Sidaway 17:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What evidence do you have to support this point of view? Half of Americans take the Bible literally. Half of Americans believe homosexuality is immoral. The Christian Coalition has two million members. I think you're the one whose view is skewed. Serendi^podous 18:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

So what would you change, exactly? Wrad 17:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You'd add a dispute tag. Not all that constructive, really. Serendi^podous 18:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Remember here that we're not writing about the views of the ignorant and the uninformed, but specifically about religious debates related to the Harry Potter books. The Jack Chick-style nonsense is somewhat overplayed in this article. Adding in the rubbish about Dumbledore's sexuality is skewing it further. The possible influence of, and relation to, the Inklings, is of more relevance to Rowling's work, and it's becoming clear that the religious objectors to her work are a tiny fringe minority and their religious objections aren't taken seriously by the vast majority of religious observants. --Tony Sidaway 18:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Not from sources I've read, except for what is already in the article. Have you been reading anything which suggests this more than the article already does? Wrad 18:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The most eloquent statement I've seen on this matter was one to which I have already alluded. In an article on an appearance by Rowling in Canada, it was stated that the young pre-invited audience was bombarded with questions on Dumbledore's sexuality both before and after the event, but they reported that the issue had not been raised. Perhaps we could add that in, to set the views of the noisy extremists in perspective. --Tony Sidaway 18:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Which has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Serendi^podous 11:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We can insert non-religious views?

Hang on, we can insert non-religious views into this article?

A number of commentators, however, have argued that Rowling's claim has no weight, as there is no indication anywhere in the novels that Dumbledore's homosexuality. "Ms. Rowling may think of Dumbledore as gay," said New York Times columnist Edward Rothstein, "but there is no reason why anyone else should." (ref Kimberly Maul (2007). "Harry Potter Fans Continue to Debate Rowling's Outing of Dumbledore". The Book Standard. Retrieved 2007-10-31.)

--Tony Sidaway 18:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we were trying to accomodate you a bit, as I felt that we needed some non-religious views to provide context. Wrad 18:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That comment had nothing to do with whether or not outing Dumbledore was "good" or "bad", so I figured it it could be included. If a secularist liberal spoke out about religious bigotry and gay rights, then no I don't think that would be appropriate for inclusion, because then this would devolve into a debate about the morality of religion itself, which isn't the point. If a religious person were to say that accepting Dumbledore as gay is a Christian tenet, then yes, I would include it, because it would be a religious view. Serendi^podous 18:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll take into consideration the possibility that adding relevant secular views on this matter may be useful in improving it. I'm not at all convinced that the Rothstein view is relevant in any way to the religious debate. --Tony Sidaway 18:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what the hell do you want? I can't magic up some godly source by some omnicient being who has absolute knowledge of the global religious reaction to Dumbledore being gay. So far, these are the published religious reactions. I can't peek into the minds of every religious person on the planet and see if they agree with them. Serendi^podous 18:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't ask you to do anything. To repeat, I'll take into consideration the possibility that adding relevant secular views on this matter may be useful in improving it. --Tony Sidaway 18:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you John Granger!

You wanted balance? Well here it is! I knew it was only a matter of time. Serendi^podous 19:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice. Wrad 15:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter at AmericanCatholic.org

I found more info on Harry Potter from the November 2007 editorial of AmericanCatholic.org if you wish to add more about this: Harry Potter and the Communion of Saints. So what do you think? --Angeldeb82 21:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. Is this real?

No offense to the real Laura Mallory, but that's a guy speaking with a falsletto Serendi^podous 11:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The Podcast notes themselves on that page read: "A live interview with (someone claiming to be) Laura Mallory." Even the people who compiled the podcast don't know who it was and they obviously haven't even made a minimal effort to contact Mallory and confirm her identity. Add to that, it's a primary source, and this is obviously not even remotely reliable. --Tony Sidaway 11:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Having listened to that broadcast, I have to say that it sounds just like Frank Oz playing Miss Piggy, except that Frank Oz has better comic timing and the Muppets have much, much better scripts. --Tony Sidaway 11:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha. Wrad (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Vote on name change

This article had its name changed from Religious debates over the Harry Potter series back to Religious debates over Harry Potter. I have no opinion one way or the other about this, but thought it should be put to a vote. Serendi^podous 01:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Shia and sunni

I appreciate the effort, but is it meaningful to divide the responses into Shia and Sunni, when we can't even be sure of the denomination of some of the responses? There's a fair few Shi'a Muslims in Pakistan. Andjam (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Serendi^podous 14:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

For those upset over POV

Please see here and here before editing. This won't exactly assuage your concerns, but it will give you an idea of where the debate currently stands.Serendi^podous 06:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Allusions to Tolkien

I feel these are extremely questionable; Lord of the Rings is notable for its portrayal of magic as a 'slow' thing acting over centuries, rather than simple spells to be memorised and repeated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.110.134 (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I find that questionable. Gandalf's magic is pretty fiery and fast. So is the phial of Galadriel, which seems to light up with a simple word. So is the door to Moria with the password "mellon." I could go on... Wrad (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What?

Just read the article. Wrad (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the deal. In the US and parts of the Middle East (and to lesser extent elsewhere) there are people who think magic is real. They think that human beings really do have the ability to work with Satan and demons to influence events and people in the real world. Therefore, reading fictional stories about magic puts children at risk of becoming devil worshippers. In other words, there is a disturbingly large number of people whose minds are basically in the Middle Ages. It's pretty sad. thx1138 (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the article should provide more context regarding this? Wrad (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. That would go way beyond its scope. thx1138 (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The hypocrisy here is

that being drown to 'magical crafts' is in itself theological. This is not a forum but the front page of wikipedia reads like religions are attacking Harry Potter like that is not an attack to religions in itself. --Leladax (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Who's drowning and who's attacking? Wrad (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter isn't a religion. It's not wicca, it doesn't resemble any form of actual religious practice. Therefore it has no reason to be protected from banning under freedom of religion. However, we DO have freedom of speech, which protects things like fictional books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why banning efforts have been so unsuccessful. Wrad (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be pointed out

That at one point or another, all of us with conservative Christian parents know.. that they go through phases where ALL fantasy is banned. Harry Potter isn't usually challenged by itself, it's all forms of fantasy or imagination. Parents forget that fiction isn't real life, and worry that kids can't tell the difference, just like with violence and other issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a common issue in America. We'd just need a reference to add that sort of thing. Wrad (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Dumbledore section

This section seems fairly heavily weighted towards one POV. Shouldn't there be a sentence or paragraph about the many positive reactions, perhaps from religious LGBT organisations? -Kez (talk) 02:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

We really haven't been able to find any. If you can, please add. Wrad (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jewish response

I'm not sure, but isn't this article about religious debates over the Harry Potter series? If so, then how is anything in the Jewish Response section relevant to the article? The controversy over the selling of the 7th book on the Sabbath in Israel doesn't have anything to do with the content of the book, and thus has no place in the article. If they had been selling a book about dancing monkeys on the Sabbath, the response would have been the same, i.e. it is completely independent from the fact that it involved a Harry Potter book. 69.70.149.107 (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. It is a bit heavily biased. Still I would like to find some Jewish criticisms of the novels. Serendi^podous 03:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that it was a Harry Potter book makes all the difference in the world. They are the only book worth protesting in this way because they are so popular. Also, the Jewish section covers more than just that protest. Jewish criticisms would be good, but if they aren't there, they aren't there. Wrad (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

About the Sabbath release controversy: The popularity of the books surely was a big reason why the controversy erupted (and indeed only something so popular would have even considered being sold on the Sabbath in the first place). However, the rest of this article deals with religious debates over the content of the books. This does not. If this was to be included, then perhaps a line saying how the controversy was not content related should be added. 69.70.149.107 (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If there are Jewish criticisms then they should be included, of course. I did a quick Google check: Here, This one has nothing, This one mentions a possible allegory between Voldemort being half-Muggle and the rumour that Hitler was part Jewish. I'm not sure if that last one is enough to warrant anything for this article, but it caught my interest. I also found a Jewish criticism of Christian criticisms of Harry Potter here, though I don't think that's relevant to this wiki article. If you can find anything better, go for it. 69.70.149.107 (talk) 03:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If there isn't a controversy in a particular community, there just isn't a controversy. Maybe we could have an 'Other religions' section, with comment about Hindu, Buddhist opinions et., but maybe that's as far as we should go. Google trawling should only be taken so far.--Pharos (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

May I just congratulate this page's contributors on managing to work together to bring together numerous contentious points of view to create a well-rounded, well-sourced article. I am impressed. Yeanold Viskersenn (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have to say it's a relief to see that. Usually we're being accused of pushing a POV, so I'm glad you can read it as unbiased. :) Serendi^podous 03:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sere! I know you've worked hard on this page! -munkee_madness talk 03:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Kudos -- an excellent article. I particularly enjoyed the images selected for this page. —Burn Down Babylon 05:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Good job on getting this topic to be the featured article. However, the very first part struck me as odd:

"This opposition crosses many religious lines, with some members of Protestant, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians and Shia and Sunni Muslims faiths arguing against the series."

These religions all fall under the grouping of Abrahamic religions and no other major religions, such as Hinduism or Buddhism, are mentioned in the article. Wouldn't it make more sense to replace "crosses many religious lines" with "comes from branches of Abrahamic religions"?--Revth (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Wrad (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think "crosses many religious lines" implies - maybe this is just me - that there's some kind of unified movement, which I don't think is shown. But the phrase "Abrahamic religions" is unfortunately clunky. Oh well, the latter is an improvement. Tempshill (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Changed. I'm a bit unsure about using "branches", so if anyone with better knowledge of religions can replace this word, it will be great.--Revth (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

An excellent article on a tough subject. My thanks to the authors. calr (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Idiotic article to feature

Whoever keeps featuring all these idiotic articles really needs to step back and take a look at how this reflects on the Wikipedia community as a whole...for God's sake Wikipedia contains articles on a diverse range of topics and this is the best you people can do. It is absolutely pathetic that we cannot cover topics of greater interest or depth than this...Scott 110 (talk) 06:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You might get better attention bringing that up on the Main Page's Talk page. Wrad (talk) 06:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It just seems weird that, sitting there on the front page, is a ridiculous claim that "the government won't let public schools ban harry potter because witchcraft is a protected religion under the constitution"... when wicca has nothing to do with harry potter whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Then fix it. Tempshill (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not even what the Main Page says. It's your own summary with a heavy slant. Wrad (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates is the place to shoot down bad articles before they become Featured. We can use more help doing so over there in general. Tempshill (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Spirit guides 'new age'?

I don't want to change it out of hand, because I don't have a ref right now, but the statement in Religious_debates_over_Harry_Potter#Definition_of_witchcraft.2FWicca saying that spirit guides are new age isn't a complete answer - they are also a strong part of First nations spirituality. Anchoress (talk) 08:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

We can't really change that sentence since it is a direct quote. But if you can find something that would add meaning to the quote that would be good. Wrad (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Problems with images

The images Image:Nervous Witch 20.gif and Image:Harrypottersatan.gif are not significant for this article and are merely used for decoration. Unless clear purpose of use descriptions (for the specific uses in this article) are added to their non-free use rationales, they should be removed per WP:NFCC policy (#1,) #3, #8, and #10. – Ilse @ 10:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"Not significant for this article"!? You've got to be kidding. I'm shocked. "Merely used for decoration"!? As far as I've heard, they're nothing but informative. If they're for decoration only, they're pretty dang ugly. Wrad (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wrad. These images are entirely relevant to the article, and provide much more than mere decoration. The article would lose a lot were these to be removed. Aleta (Sing) 17:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The biggest misunderstanding is that the first amendment protects the separtion of church and state. This is not true. It is a great debate, but please remove the part that says the first amendment protects this. It was written by someone who is clearly not a lawyer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.50.63.15 (talk) 12:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems as though this has been fixed. Wrad (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

ONE THOUSAND AND ONE NIGHTS

I find it interesting that nothing has been mentioned of the fact that Islam has had its share of magic in its history. After all, One Thousand and One Nights is chock full of such tales, and it has been very popular over the years. Indeed, it re-introduced magic as a plot tool in societies where Magic had basically been forgotten or fallen into disrepute. Harry Potter didn't start any of that. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Magic is present in many religions, whether they admit it or not.Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

1001 nights actually is largely persian and sufi and not islamic. It was also much more popular in Europe than it ever was in Arabian nations. Wrad (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Constitutional issue needs citation

Sorry, I don't see that any of the references support this:

"In the United States, calls for the books to be banned from schools have led occasionally to widely publicised legal challenges, usually on the grounds that witchcraft is a government-recognised religion and that to allow the books to be held in public schools violates the separation of church and state."

It would be an enormous leap in logic for anyone to make this argument, it would have to come from a fringe right group and would be unlikely as such an argument would then preclude the Bible from public schools which not even the ACLU supports (provided it is use for academic reasons)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.215.225 (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, that is the argument being made by people with religious objections to the Harry Potter series. Specifically, that is the charge made by Laura Mallory who has been trying since September 2005 to have the books removed from the Gwinnett County public school libraries. Nevermind that the exact same argument can (and has) been made against Bibles, which sets these same people off about how the government persecutes Christians. Please read the article; Mallory's claims are cited. You are right in that the initial claim needs to be cited. TechBear (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have named some cites in the Mallory section and put them into the second paragraph. We might want to move some of the citations from latter in the article forward in a similar manner, to head off similar outrage from those who read only the introduction. TechBear (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever seems to have done this. Wrad (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article, is this a joke?

I am laughing hard as I sit here and look at an article that “ … has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community ” So this is what we pour our time and efforts into? With so much on Wikipedia to showcase it is seems a almost ludicrous to waste more ink on this topic, let alone make it a featured article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.248.73 (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

So are you complaining about the quality of the article, or the fact that the article exists? Serendi^podous 22:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Does your computer use ink? :) This is the best article on Religious responses worldwide to the Harry Potter series that I have seen anywhere, not just wikipedia. I think it's a pretty awesome achievement, even if it does seem like an everday thing to regular wikiusers. Wrad (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have found a few issues with this article which made me a disappointed to find it under the featured status, not the least of which the opening paragraph all but saying Anyone who thinks there's witchcraft in this book is a 10th century religious nut (I've reworded it, but you can still find it on the main page). And wouldn't the article be better named as Controversy surrounding Harry Potter (it is important to note that it isn't only religious people who took issue with the novel or its developments, contrary to the thrust of the article). The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't like the way it's worded on the main page either, but I don't think it's that bad. Do you really think it's saying that? Others have complained in the opposite direction. "Controversy" is too general a term for a book which has copyright controversies, political and sexual controversies, and religious controversies. There are other articles for those. This one focuses on religious controversies only. It has both sides. I don't really see what the big problem is unless you just want to crush evangelicals into the dirt, completely snuff out what they've said, and replace the entire page with "These guys are idiots!" That's just not what wikipedia does. Wikipedia highlights all notable points of view, and in the US, especially, but also in other countries, this is a very notable and controversial point of view. Wrad (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it April Fools already? Why would any religious person respond to a fictional series of books? My God - talk about people over reacting in this modern society. Someone always has to get offended! However, as the Featured Article is about writing style and not context, this article meets the criteria. 172.213.211.136 (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That's how I feel about it. It's a well written article about a controversial subject that gets people mad and frustrated but, nevertheless, exists. Wrad (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It certainly qualifies to be a featured article, although I must admit that the article relates to nothing important. End of. Josh Anderson (talk)

Why no mention of Philip Pullman's Dark Materials Trilogy?

At least that series has a serious theological debate aspect to it, rather than this Potter fancruft/controversy-exaggeration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.161.249 (talk) 11:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because this is an article about the Harry Potter series and His Dark Materials would be off-topic? TechBear (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to start a Religious debates over His Dark Materials article, you're welcome, though oddly I think you'll find there has been less of a debate over those books than there has over Harry Potter, despite Pullman's all-but jumping up and down waving his hand and screaming "Pick me! Pick me! I wanna be censored!" As far as I'm aware, His Dark Materials has never been taken to court, no copy of His Dark Materials has ever been thrown onto a bonfire, and those books never been suspected as the motive in an attempted terrorist attack. The same cannot be said of Harry Potter.Serendi^podous 15:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

HDM has certainly been banned and burned, but that is off-topic unless a quote is found comparing Pullman's work with Rowling's.Mdiamante (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Why don't fundamentalists admire Dumbledore?

He's gay, but, as far as we know, has had no lovers since his teenage years, and maybe not even then. He doesn't seem to mention his homosexuality either. Isn't being celibate and closeted (if indeed he is; the books don't say this outright) exactly what religious fundamentalists want gay people to be, since marrying somebody of a different gender would be a false witness? There must be some commentary somewhere to this effect, unless those who think gays are an abomination are truly incapable of adding all this up. Mdiamante (talk) 03:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You make an interesting, if provocative, case, but this page isn't really for general discussion. Wikipedia isn't that kind of site. --Tony Sidaway 05:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You're assuming there is an internal consistency to what they get outraged about. thx1138 (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Article name

Perhaps you've discussed this before, but wouldn't it make more sense if the article was titled "Harry Potter (religious debates)" ? With a link from the Harry Potter DAB? ^Avruchtalk 23:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Great article, by the way. ^Avruchtalk 23:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) As for the redirect, I think this article can stand on its own- it isn't really about Harry Potter per se, more a document of a peculiar moral panic. The template at the bottom of the page links to it, so there's no real need to disambig. Nice idea though. Serendi^podous 00:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Images

Any thoughts on additional images? The article is looking a bit bare. Serendi^podous 14:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we have one of Dumbledore or Rowling? Wrad (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We have one of Rowling, but it's not easy to contextualise for this article since it shows her getting a degree from the University of Aberdeen. An image of Dumbledore is possible, but it would have to be argued on fair use grounds. A picture of Laura Mallory would be cool. Serendi^podous 15:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

Could somebody please copy the citations from the body of th e text into the introduction, too. As it is the introduction makes serveral claims which it does not back up, but which are covered by the main body. Both sections need these citations. - perfectblue (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Very tedious but done. I have to say I don't see the point of sourcing an introduction. If someone is only willing to read the first three paragraphs of a 5000-word article, he or she is not really in a position to complain that its authors weren't thorough enough. Serendi ^pod ous 12:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"Dumbledore's Sexuality" section

I'm wondering whether or not the second paragraph inadvertently implies that all Christians object to gay people. I was trying to think of ways of rewording the first sentence ("Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin and who were critical of Harry Potter responded ..." is so clunky. "Homophobic Christians who were critical of Harry ..." is better, but a little strident and likely to cause controversy).

It's a little tricky, but I don't think it's fair to assume that just because some people don't like Harry Potter, that they also hate gay people. Rangergordon (talk) 08:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, perhaps it can be reworded, but I think that Christians uncritical of gay people are also not likely to be critical of Harry Potter. I suppose "critical of both Harry Potter and homosexuality" would be better? Serendi ^pod ous 08:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Much less clumsy than my wording! Looks like you captured the golden snitch on that one, Serendipodous; good job. Rangergordon (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Suffering Passages to Snipped Out of Wikipedia

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

The desire to take this old testament passage seriously, and the imaginative use of occult or Satanic subtexts in J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter fantasy novels has given rise to numerous debates within the Christian community. Those which take things literally generally condemn the books; those which allow for imagination, generally regard them as moral fiction.

There are a number of issues with your addition. First, there are no third-party sources connecting the quotation to Harry Potter; the connection is yours alone. Second, not only Christians have criticised Harry Potter; Muslims have too, and that passage means nothing to them. Third, the line "the imaginative use of occult or Satanic subtexts in J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter fantasy novels has given rise to numerous debates within the Christian community" makes the implied judgment that the books are occult or Satanic, which is contradicted by later passages which argue that they are not. Serendi ^pod ous 21:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

OK; I've revised your comments and added a third party citation. It should be relatively neutral now. Serendi ^pod ous 21:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

hi serendipodous -- you know, i share your concerns that the criticisms are not just from the christians -- so i'm quite sure that what i've said could (should!) be reworded to be inclusive -- but by pre-emptively deleting it, you really seemed to miss the point. :( the axis is not christian/non-christian (or whatever) -- the point is calling attention to the axis of those who take things literally/fundamentally vs those who take things imaginatively -- this point (which could be presented inclusively of christian/muslim/what-have-you) has been excised along with the bathwater.

Religious debates over Harry Potter by J. K. Rowling stem largely from assertions that the Harry Potter novels contain occult or Satanic subtexts.

this is good -- but a reader with no religious background isn't really given any sort of 'why' these occult / religious subtexts should even bother the religious folk. the fundamentalist point of view (be in christian/muslim/what-have-you) takes the point of view that one should not suffer witches to live seriously -- which is (to me, at least) irrational. but irrational or not -- it is the CAUSE out of which they act. that's why the passage (interpret it as you will) does have some significance. the fact that they take it literally is the root of their folly.

the second point of view is generally those which have a bit more imagination -- they see the fantasy and wizards and magic as such. they are not such literallists as the fundamentalists generally are, and see the metaphor as a good moral tale.

so i was trying to enlarge it from presenting only one point of view -- to include a bit more in-depth understanding of why these groups might be doing what they're doing. -- but i don't see what deleting such things out helps. Johnrpenner (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Those which take things literally generally condemn the books; those which allow for imagination, generally regard them as moral fiction.

(deleted)

so thx a lot -- just try and improve an article, and get things deleted by the likes of you (three times -- at your discretion) i must conclude that my efforts to improve this article are a waste of time. ciao. Johnrpenner (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Definition of witchcraft/Wicca

I have some problems with this section. It's all very nice to be able to laugh and say "you're wrong on all these points", but in fact this section is misrepresenting Wicca just as much as the Harry-haters.

The heading itself seems to imply that witchcraft and Wicca are synonymous. Wicca is merely one variety of modern witchcraft.
Wiccans commune with the dead and the spirit world. At Halloween (or Samhain), for example, we invite the spirits of our ancestors and deceased loved ones to return and share our warmth and companionship for an evening. Extensive spirit contact by Wiccans (via ouija board and channeling) is recounted in A Voice in the Forest by Jimahl diFiosa, an Alexandrian High Priest.
Sorcery: well, Wiccans definitely perform magic. The word 'sorcery' has a sinister sound to it, which perhaps doesn't fit with Wicca so well, but if it merely means 'performing magic', then certainly.
Occult symbology: this is merely a catch-all phrase for anything that looks a bit 'occult', isn't it? Well, Wicca is very definitely 'occultism', since it deals with magic and the hidden parts of reality. And yes, Wiccans use occult symbols, such as zodiacal signs.
Curses are of course forbidden in Wicca, as is all malicious or harmful magic.
Demon posession: Whoever accused Wiccans of practicing demon posession is pulling a swift one. Wiccans practice what could loosely be called "posession": calling our God or Goddess into the body of a priest or priestess. I guess this is fairly similar to what Christians call "being filled with the spirit", but if you happen to consider the Wiccan gods to be demons (and of course they're demons, aren't they, since any deity other than Jehovah is a demon), then you could term this "demon possession", feeling only a tinge of guilt at your verbal chicanery.

The real reason why Harry Potter has nothing to do with Wicca is because Harry Potter is fantasy, presented in a manner that has virtually no resemblance to the reality of modern witchcraft, whether it be Wicca or any other variety. How many kids watch the Power Rangers and decide they want to enter law enforcement as a ranger when they grow up? The Texas Rangers, just like the Power Rangers, wear uniforms, fight bad guys, protect law and order, have headquarters and so on. The parallels are all there, but any rational person will immediately discern the vast differences.

I don't think we need to misrepresent our religion, simply because some people get the flutters whenever the words 'magic' or 'occult' are mentioned. Lets show a bit of backbone, rather than trying to turn our faith into what we think Christians want it to be! Fuzzypeg ★ 23:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, Jack Chick's characterisation of Wicca is fantastic, as daft as ever. I keep reading those words: "We wanted his powers … so we called for spirit guides. Then they came into us" and it puts a huge grin on my face. It's absolutely sublime! Fuzzypeg ★ 23:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have to go on what the sources say. If you can find sources that discuss what you say in relation to Harry Potter, then absolutely they can be included. But they'd have to specifically mention Harry Potter, otherwise it would violate WP:SYN.Serendi ^pod ous 05:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding communing with the dead, take either the diFiosa book I mentioned or the classic text on the Wiccan sabbats, Eight Sabbats for Witches by Janet and Stewart Farrar, under the Halloween section. Sorcery, take the founding book of the movement, Witchcraft Today by Gerald Gardner. Or look in a dictionary under witchcraft. Occult symbology: again, the Farrars' book has lots of symbols in it, or perhaps you could look in Ray Buckland's Complete Book of Witchcraft. He likes his weird symbols and magical alphabets. Spirit posession, again, look in the Farrars' book, or Gardner's book, or What witches do by Stewart Farrar. Maybe I'll even bother to find page numbers some time. I'm not trying to be unhelpful, I just don't have my books in front of me. Fuzzypeg ★ 06:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be OK in an article on Wicca, but for this article any sources employed have to state what you claim in specific reference to Harry Potter. I can't say, "Those guys are wrong because Wicca doesn't involve X, Y or Z", because then I'm stating an opinion. All I can say is, "So-and-so says those guys are wrong because Wicca doesn't involve X, Y or Z." You see the difference? If you can find me some sources like that, then I can use them. Serendi ^pod ous 07:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It's sad that this topic evens warrants a wikepedia page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.93.168 (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Name change

I propose changing the link in the first section from "Torah" to "Bible". My logic on this is that Judaism is widely recognized to use the Torah while Christianity commonly uses the Bible. Especially, as the very next things are verses that are attributed to the (KJV) and while I am no religious scholar, I am quite sure that there is no King James Version of the Torah, the Bible, yes, the Torah, not bloody likely. Yes, yes, I know that the first five books of the Bible are taken from the Torah, it doesn't change my rationale for wanting to change it. In fact, the only reason I brought it up here on the discussion page first was because this article is listed as a "Best of..." and nearly any change is liable to create controversy. Normally, I just change whatever needs to be changed, but most of my edits are proofreading (grammar, spelling, obvious poor use of spellcheck, and things of that nature). Perhaps the mention of the Torah could be included in the section on Judaism, although it doesn't seem that the Jewish faith has a lot of problem with the series. Comments welcome, and before the flaming and WP:NPA start, I am of Jewish descent, Protestant upbringing, and now nonpracticing in any religion. This is not religion-motivated, merely a desire for things to be in what I think are the proper place. Also, if this has already been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere, my apologies, and could you provide a link to the discussion. Thanks Radiooperator (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The first five books of the Bible aren't taken from the Torah. The first five books of the Bible are the Torah. Still, the name change doesn't bother me. Perhaps "Pentateuch" would be more appropriate? Serendi ^pod ous 06:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the section deals with Christian objections to the Harry Potter novels, "Pentateuch" is more appropriate than "Torah." However, the term "Pentateuch" implies certain well-defined historical considerations for anti-Harry Potter arguments that the arguments' proponents do not intend.

Apart from ministers and scholars, most modern Western Christians have no reason to consider the historical significance of literary aggregations such as the Massorah, Pentateuch, Septuagint, etc. Common objections to Harry Potter novels are not based on any rationale of how the Bible came to be constructed over time.

Modern Western Christian objections to Harry Potter novels are based on the modern Western Christian concept of the entire Bible as an irreducible symbol of faith and a bastion against the faith's concept of evil. In other words, any Biblical passage containing the term "witchcraft," from whichever translation happened to be in use, might serve as the basis of an objection against J.K. Rowling.

I suggest the simplest way to clear up the issue is to be either more general or more specific: "Christian opposition to witchcraft is usually credited to two Old Testament passages." (The passages, which immediately follow in the article, are clearly labeled. But, if more precision is desired, the following clause could be appended: "... one of which appears in Genesis, and the other in Deuteronomy." Rangergordon (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's all a bit strange really. I originally wrote "Pentateuch", but then I wikilinked to Pentateuch and discovered that it was simply a reprint of the Torah article. So I merged Pentateuch with Torah, and in the process started a minor holy war on that article's talk page. What hath Harry Potter wrought? Serendi ^pod ous 08:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Christianity

How is Harry's carving a cross into a tree not seen as a relevant point in whether or not he is Christian. IT'S A CROSS!!! WHO ELSE USES A CROSS??? CHRISTIANS, THAT IS A VERY RELEVANT POINT!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.193.204.111 (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It may seem self-evident, but personal interpretations are to be avoided on Wikipedia. If someone else made that connection, and that someone else noted it in a reliable source, then that source could be included, but simply mentioning the connection isn't enough. Serendi ^pod ous 16:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Why else would he carve a cross unless he was christian? How can you say you need some idiot journalist who has no idea what J.K. Rowling herself (who has characterized herself as a christian) means when she uses a religious symbol in her book??

Instead of me having to show you that the cross is meant as a religious symbol why don't you show me a viable reason as to why someone would mark a grave with a cross. The characters are Christian, the only holidays they celebrate are Halloween, Easter, and Christmas, all Christian holidays. They say "Happy Christmas" in the books, which people shouldn't use that term if they aren't Christian, she has done almost everything short of placing a chapel inside of the school to show their Christianity and people just assume they are pagans.

You don't show anything. Other people show it and write about it, and you report that they wrote about it. If no one wrote about it, then it doesn't go in. It doesn't matter if it's true. Wikipedia isn't about what's true; it's about what's verifiable. Serendi ^pod ous 18:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

What is more verifiable than the publication itself??? That is the only way to verify anything because only she knows what things in the book really mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.34.209.230 (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Because however obvious it may appear to be, unless you can see inside JK Rowling's head you are making an assumption about what she intended based on your own preconceived ideas about what the books are about. Find a reliable source that backs up your opinion, and it can go in. Otherwise it stays out. Serendi ^pod ous 18:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how to source properly but this http://www.osv.com/Portals/0/images/pdf/TheLastChapter.pdf should verify it quite well, just look under the Christian symbolism section then I will thank you to put it back in the article

Who is Nancy Carpenter Brown? Is she qualified as a critic or has she ever written for anything other than her own personal amusement? There is nothing in that link to tell me that it isn't simply someone else expressing their own personal opinions. Please see: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Serendi ^pod ous 18:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Check for yourself she has a wikipedia entry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.34.209.230 (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

So I'm assuming that this link is to an extract of her book, The Mystery of Harry Potter: A Catholic Family Guide? Was it published legally? (I mean the extract, not the book) Serendi ^pod ous 18:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is a legal extract, you see it is her Publisher's website. So will you just put it on the website? I've done everything you asked.204.193.204.111 (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I need to find the exact link on that site for the pdf. Then I'll find a way to work it into the article tomorrow. Serendi ^pod ous 19:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.osv.com/BooksNav/TheMysteryofHarryPotter/tabid/3880/Default.aspx That website has a link to the pdf if that helps at all.204.193.204.111 (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That's all I need. I need time to read the extract, so I won't be able to get to it till late tomorrow. Serendi ^pod ous 20:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(EC) That Harry carved a cross and the celebration of Easter and Christmas imply Harry and pals are Christian is a reasonable interpretation. However, that is exactly what it is: your interpretation. If you can cite a reliable source that interprets the events that way, we can put that in the article. However, we can not simply put in our own interpretations - to do so violates our practice of no original research. (By the way, your interpretation is not the only possible one - perhaps Harry et al are not Christians, but have been influenced by the dominant cultural influences of Christianity. We can't put this in the article either though, as it is also an interpretation without a reliable source.) Ladyof Shalott 19:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Bible quotes neutrality issue

I wanted to run this by everyone before doing anything...

The "Christianity" section, where it quotes the two biblical passages, only includes quotes for the KJV rendering of the Bible. While we usually here those passages quoted as in the article; if it's supposed to be quoting the Bible, than other renderings (such as the "New International Version") should be included. Three reasons:

It's impossible to truly quote the Bible in English, as they are all translation. Since all versions are criticized for various perceived inaccuracies, shouldn't multiple rendering be listed?
The NIV is supposed to be the other top Bible, now topping the others in sales.^[4] If only one other is added for balance and neutrality, it would seem to be NIV.
Wikipedia's standard of neutrality (properly representing a document in this case) would seem to be applicable. So, shouldn't we at least list the two top versions of the passages in this Wikipedia article.

Therefore the section would appear as:

Christian opposition to witchcraft is usually credited to two biblical references: Exodus 22:18:

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." (KJV)

"Do not allow a sorceress to live." (NIV)

Deuteronomy 18:10–11:

"There shall not be found among you anyone [...] that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer." (KJV)

"Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. (NIV)

EDG161 (talk) 07:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The specific translation doesn't really matter. All that matters is the original Hebrew, which is quoted in the article. Serendi ^pod ous 00:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

'dumbledore's sexuality' section

The 'dumbledore's sexuality' section is incredibly bias. it is obviously written by people who were disappointed by rowling's revelation about dumbledore. the many quotes from christian leaders criticizing the 'message it sends children' shouldn't be there. i'm going to delete some of them. if anyone disagrees, post here and perhaps a compromise can be worked out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.120.158 (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

They absolutely should be there. This is an article about religious responses to the Harry Potter series, so they are valid. If you feel you need to balance it out, try finding more positive religious responses. They're hard to find, but people have found a few. Serendi ^pod ous 07:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

well, bias or NO bias, this pg is TOO long. mayb merge? no point having it..just crtisims... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubesgirl (talk • contribs) 17:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Some Iranian views

Just stumbled across this [6] Wrad (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, you already have it. Wrad (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

^ Raju Mudhar (2007). "Outing Dumbledore sparks fierce debate". thestar.com. Retrieved 2007-10-27.
^ "REASSESSMENTS: Dumbledore comes out in the world". The Sydney Morning Harald. 2007. Retrieved 2007-10-27.
^ Linda Harvey (2007). [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58299 "Christian parents: Stop trusting Harry Potter"]. WorldNetDaily. Retrieved 2007-10-26. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
^ "New Inernational Version#Circulation". NIV Circulation Data

[1] Raju Mudhar (2007). "Outing Dumbledore sparks fierce debate". thestar.com. Retrieved 2007-10-27.

[2] "REASSESSMENTS: Dumbledore comes out in the world". The Sydney Morning Harald. 2007. Retrieved 2007-10-27.

[harvey-3] Linda Harvey (2007). [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58299 "Christian parents: Stop trusting Harry Potter"]. WorldNetDaily. Retrieved 2007-10-26. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)

[4] "New Inernational Version#Circulation". NIV Circulation Data

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]