[The Pelagic Argosy]

Originally Posted by Lith

TPA- the ministry also seems to have overlooked the awful potential of polyjuice potion.

Yes. I wonder if the FDA has weighed in on lacewing flies.

D&D problems were started because one kid got crazy about it and killed someone, and because that particular kid was into satanism, the rest of the phenomenon became associated with it. And problems with Potter, I'm told, stem back to an article written by The Onion, in which a child gains an interest in the occult as a result of reading Harry Potter. Obviously the overly literal and zealous person who read the article didn't understand what The Onion was.

Actually, I don't think that all, or even most, D&D and HP hysteria can be traced back to these two sources. (I think the Onion article was probably a humorous response to HP hysteria already in full swing.) I think that many people drew conclusion about D&D and HP's "occult-ness" independently. D&D, for example, tends not to be played by cheerleader and football-player types. D&D is dorky. It's played by people like my husband: the quiet kid who wore black and who smoked in the parking lot before school. And my husband is a satanist (I'm not helping my case, am I?), and he is a dork, and I don't think it's a coincidence. But this, along with the weird-looking 20-sided dice helped give D&D the whiff of the occult.

The definition of the occult: "Occult" = "scary happenings." This is a word where the connotation is more important than the already vague dictionary definition. It's defined the way pornography is. Its nefarious implications can be used cast suspicion on anything one doesn't like: ouija boards, crystals, heavy metal lyrics, that store that sells dream-catchers and smells funny, D&D, yoga. (Yes, yoga. I'll explain below.) Like pornography, the mystery is what makes it seductive and, so the argument goes, dangerous. But the more specific you are in describing the particular occult object/practice in question, the sillier the argument (not to mention the occult object/practice) seems. ("It's a bunch of guys sitting around a table, pretending to be elves, keeping track of dozens of complicated character stats on paper, and fighting imaginary monsters via dice rolls. But mostly they're talking about their favorite episodes of Buffy.")

It's just like the word "secular" is being used by some Christians today. "Secular," of course, means "non-religious." That could mean almost anything. It could be used to describe atheism. It could be used to describe science. It could be used to describe an egg-salad sandwich. But these days it's being used to mean "anti-religious," or, of course, "anti-Christian." (Conservative commentators like Cal Thomas have used it in this sense.) Supposedly there is a "secular" movement afoot today that's being used to keep Christians down and is the reason that society is on the decline. But this argument is spurious. Science, for example, is secular. It's non-religious. It's a different paradigm. But listen to the creationists argue that their "theories" aren't taken seriously by science because of anti-Christian prejudice in colleges, on school boards, and on the judiciary, etc. Proponents of evolution are labeled "secularists," and the PR damage is done. Geez, why can't science give the Christian viewpoint a fair shake? And so on...

I've gone on a bit of a rant (No!), but this same argument is used against the HP books as well. It doesn't matter how good and moral Harry and his friends are. The Christmas thing isn't good enough; they aren't shown going to church. Therefore, HP is anti-Christian. Never mind that that would have nothing to do with the plot and it would alienate non-Christian readers. And never mind that Frodo and Aragorn never went to church either.

Of course, as an atheist, I have objections to the notion that the words "moral" and "religious" are synonymous.

Originally Posted by Dave

This subject was discussed on a radio phone-in and one of the points made was that the Vatican must actually believe that there is a viable alternative to Christianity that works; a lifestyle choice in which casting magic is possible, otherwise they would not be worried.

That reminds me of an article I read in a magazine written for Christian women. The article discussed whether is was acceptable to practice Yoga, because of its roots in Hinduism. Mind you, the article never claimed that Yoga was bunk. The article claimed that many women find Yoga relaxing, healthful, etc. In fact, that was the very problem. Yoga works, but you would be achieving health and relaxation in a non-Christian way (???), therefore, a good Christian woman should proceed with caution.

Anyway, the above are some of the reasons that I, as an atheist, find Christian objections to the fantasy genre to be incoherent. After all, Rowling is a Christian, as was Tolkien and Lewis. I would say it's because HP is aimed at children, but so was Narnia and The Hobbit. I actually think it's something about Rowling's style and her sudden popularity. I think it's because she's hip. Kids were reading it and quoting it and taking it to heart before their parents understood it. Tolkien wrote in a "high" ethereal style. The implications of his magic were more vague. Whereas, Rowling was more specific -- mix these ingredients (some of them real) to make X potion. And she described a hidden world running parallel to our own, and that is the very definition of "the occult."