"Chief Exorcist says Harry Potter is the devil" - Dont read if offendeded easily!

[Lauriel]

My two cents.

I've read the entire backlog, although by the end I was skipping any post by TrustNo1, or that quoted him. Least said, soonest mended, so I'm not going to comment. I'll just say this: Faith is the belief in a supernatural intelligence, religion is the formal structure used in expressing faith. Faith doesn't cause problems, religion does. I've read the Bible cover-to-cover and find little to persuade me to remain a Christian. (I'm a Bright.) In fact, to quote my Religious Education teacher (an ordained Anglican priest): "The Bible contains parables, myths and laws, with very little fact." The more I see of the religious people who make the news, the less I want to be a part of any religion, no matter what it is. If I was forced to choose one, I'd become a Buddhist - Buddha once said, "The gods are irrelevant", so that makes it perfect for me. I don't need the thought of some cosmic Big Brother to make me behave in a decent way, so why should I belong to any religion, and that includes Wicca, Paganism, Satanism... Having been raised by parents of different faiths (Lutheran mother, Catholic father) and going to school with children from different religions (Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims, Christians and Jews), I have learned religious tolerance. The level of fundamentalism I saw here horrified and saddened me.

Fantastic post! I have to say I agree with you on some points here. My father is non-practicing Anglican, and my mother is Catholic. I was brought up Catholic. I no longer follow this religion, however, as I have had many negative experiences due to this religion (Catholic school system - no more need be said. ). I don't follow any religion at the moment, however this does not affect my faith. Admittedly, my beliefs on God differ to many people's, as I believe God to be more of a natural force rather than a spiritual being. I find many religions to be more centered on control, and less on faith. The two religions that I most identify with are Bhuddism and Wicca, as these two religions both center on personal accountability, responsibility, spirituality and improvement. They both, from my understanding, promote the belief that change comes from withing, and how you interact with the world affects the world. I find it difficult to see how any religion can be of benefit when the focus is on another being, and the intent is on conversion or damnation. By this, I don't mean at swordpoint, although that is certainly an anethma to me, but simply that if you do not belong to said religion you will be eternally damned, regardless of the life you live, your personal spirituality or personal conduct.

Back on topic:
There's something seriously wrong somewhere when a leading member of a major religious group links a fictional character to Satan. The link he makes indicates he has no knowledge of the books or the values they represent. To me, it's yet another reason not to become Catholic. I have nothing against Catholics, per se (my father was one), it's just not for me. I know that not all Catholics will agree with Rev. Amorth, but he is supposed to represent the views of the hierarchy and that doesn't bode well.

Agreed. I know many Catholics who would disagree with this attitude. As with any religion, IMHO, it is the small amount of fanatics who are represented by such views. I find it hard to believe that a book can contain Satan, or that reading a book is sufficient to convert someone to devil-worship. Even the Bible, which arguably can convert someone to Christianity, relies on the church, societal views and religious doctrine to accompany it and strengthen and deepen people's understanding and belief. The Bible is not a stand alone book, so to speak. (I hope I'm making myself clear and not POing people because I can't quite get at what I mean. )

I also have serious doubts about the mentality of anybody who wants to ban or burn any book. People should have access to as many different ideas and opinions as possible. If somebody doesn't like a book, they don't have to read it. But nobody has any right to deny other people access to that book just because they don't like the ideas it contains. People who ban books are, to me, the worst kind of fundamentalist.

I strongly believe that information is strength. Even if the Rev. were correct, banning books is not a solution. Education is. If he strongly believes what he says, then surely a better path would be to educate people by differentiating the positive and negative aspects of the Harry Potter books, rather than dismissing it and banning it? If I don't know what Poison Ivy is, or what it's effect is, I will merrily go walking through a patch of Poison Ivy and not know the negative effect until it is too late. If I know what Poison Ivy is, and what it will do to me, I will avoid it. While this is a simplification, it is no different with religion, morals, ethics, behaviour, etc. Educated people who are aware of the dangers and the liabilities of those dangers will be more able to avoid them and successfully adhere to 'safe' paths. If books exist that the Rev. feels are dangerous, he should focus his effforts on educating people, rather than advocating their removal (and looking foolish). Admittedly, this is a harder thing to do that simply saying 'this is evil and should be banned' and also allows for the followers of the religion to have some independent thought and personal responsiblity for their faith, both of which many fanatics seem to dissapprove.

I found this thread by accident, so thanks to most of you for an interesting conversation. And thanks for some interesting links.

I would also like to thank everyone for their comments on this thread. For the most part, comments have been rational, inquisitive, and open minded, promoting some very fascinating discussion. I personally enjoy open minded discussions on religion, and am constantly fascinated by the wide variety of religions and interpretations of religions. This thread has been very stimulating.

[Exiled Master]

Fantastic post! I have to say I agree with you on some points here. My father is non-practicing Anglican, and my mother is Catholic. I was brought up Catholic. I no longer follow this religion, however, as I have had many negative experiences due to this religion (Catholic school system - no more need be said. ). I don't follow any religion at the moment, however this does not affect my faith. Admittedly, my beliefs on God differ to many people's, as I believe God to be more of a natural force rather than a spiritual being. I find many religions to be more centered on control, and less on faith. The two religions that I most identify with are Bhuddism and Wicca, as these two religions both center on personal accountability, responsibility, spirituality and improvement. They both, from my understanding, promote the belief that change comes from withing, and how you interact with the world affects the world. I find it difficult to see how any religion can be of benefit when the focus is on another being, and the intent is on conversion or damnation. By this, I don't mean at swordpoint, although that is certainly an anethma to me, but simply that if you do not belong to said religion you will be eternally damned, regardless of the life you live, your personal spirituality or personal conduct.



Agreed. I know many Catholics who would disagree with this attitude. As with any religion, IMHO, it is the small amount of fanatics who are represented by such views. I find it hard to believe that a book can contain Satan, or that reading a book is sufficient to convert someone to devil-worship. Even the Bible, which arguably can convert someone to Christianity, relies on the church, societal views and religious doctrine to accompany it and strengthen and deepen people's understanding and belief. The Bible is not a stand alone book, so to speak. (I hope I'm making myself clear and not POing people because I can't quite get at what I mean. )



I strongly believe that information is strength. Even if the Rev. were correct, banning books is not a solution. Education is. If he strongly believes what he says, then surely a better path would be to educate people by differentiating the positive and negative aspects of the Harry Potter books, rather than dismissing it and banning it? If I don't know what Poison Ivy is, or what it's effect is, I will merrily go walking through a patch of Poison Ivy and not know the negative effect until it is too late. If I know what Poison Ivy is, and what it will do to me, I will avoid it. While this is a simplification, it is no different with religion, morals, ethics, behaviour, etc. Educated people who are aware of the dangers and the liabilities of those dangers will be more able to avoid them and successfully adhere to 'safe' paths. If books exist that the Rev. feels are dangerous, he should focus his effforts on educating people, rather than advocating their removal (and looking foolish). Admittedly, this is a harder thing to do that simply saying 'this is evil and should be banned' and also allows for the followers of the religion to have some independent thought and personal responsiblity for their faith, both of which many fanatics seem to dissapprove.


I would also like to thank everyone for their comments on this thread. For the most part, comments have been rational, inquisitive, and open minded, promoting some very fascinating discussion. I personally enjoy open minded discussions on religion, and am constantly fascinated by the wide variety of religions and interpretations of religions. This thread has been very stimulating.

On that note, I just have to link to this little gem. Even though I have brought it up at least twice before in this thread.