Does Harry Potter promote the Occult?

[j. d. worthington]

Without meaning to be (too) facetious... do these people even know what the word "occult" means....? If so, I'd say the Bible has a great deal more to do with promoting such than Harry Potter.....

[mosaix]

There's plenty of magic in Christianity - they just call it miracles.

I don't wish to be offensive to anyone here but I regard the bible much the same as Harry Potter - both works of fiction, with Harry Potter being a whole lot less harmful.

[Lith]

[These posts always get so much longer than I anticipate...]

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

D&D, and now Harry Potter, are not considered on the same level as Black Masses, but more as gateways to the occult. Much as cigarettes and pot are considered gateways to harder drugs. The problem (and different people have different levels of problems with HP) is that Rowling has used a small (VERY SMALL) amount of real occult material in her books. Reading the tea leaves, gazing into crystal balls, alchemy, etc. Personally I believe both have been tarred unnecessarily, and tar's a pretty sticky material; difficult to remove once it gets onto the skin. 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.

Do Christians believe in magic? The answer is that some do, some don't. Some don't believe in any of it, and that warnings against it in the Bible are for the purpose of keeping people from being deceived into trusting in things that don't exist. Others believe that all things magical, that have every appearance of being true (this often includes "miracles" by members of other religions and other paranormal activity, conversations with the dead, etc.) is accountable to either demons or to Satan himself. Most evangelicals fall into this category. And there's a third group that actually believes in all things magical, but they are definitely a small minority. And you'll find all three of these types coexisting in nearly every church, and even mixtures of the three in the same person.

I don't buy into the "it's just fiction" argument, because that would be to render the written word impotent, and if it's inherently impotent, why's it the first right guaranteed to us in the Constitution? Clearly words have power, and thoughts have power. This extends into fiction, not because people literally believe in magic or the fantastical, but because authors can't help but write their worldview into the books. And some worldviews are harmful. I don't think Rowling falls into this category and have argued against her inclusion in it. Nor is it automatically wrong to read the views of someone that disagrees with you (and it's healthy to get a certain amount of disagreement); but it does mean you need to read attentively.

And then there's the Narnia/Tolkien case. Both books explicitly use the word "magic", yet very seldom does any Christian seriously object to it; largely I think because both Lewis and Tolkien were avowed Christians, so clearly they weren't using the word in the same way as a non-Christian might. It's rather ludicrous to object to Potter while not objecting to Narnia, and this gets into the reasons why magic is condemned in the Bible. The occult's goals are generally: to curse someone (as in voodoo), to talk to the dead (as in channeling and seances), and to see into the future (fortune-telling, tarot, and quija boards). If the power to do this (since people who practice it claim it really happens) is real and it clearly doesn't come from God, then it must come from the devil. So you have a reaching by humans for a power that not only isn't God's, but is the devil's.

Within the context of a fabricated world, however, all of this changes. The power isn't necessarily attributed to Satan or to God; the power comes from wherever the author decides it comes from. It isn't, therefore, inherently evil. The power itself becomes neutral, much as mankind's seeking control of the natural world is neutral; it's good or evil depending on the use to which we put it.

Nor is it put to the uses it's put to in the real world; no occultist believes they can fetch their sugar bowl from the cupboard and command it to teleport up the stairs on its own, or turn their cat into a dragon. There's still room in a fictional world, however, to attribute things to devils and to "evil", so if the author attributes his/her magic to dark powers, then it's still a problem for Christians.

Please remember that rabidly anti-Potter people are a minority within the church (mildly anti-Potter people are much more common), and the internet has a tendency to bring out the kooks from all corners of human opinion.

edit: JD- no, they don't know what the word "occult" actually means. It's come to carry such a strong connotation of satanism that that is the working definition within churches, rather than the more proper meaning of "concealed" (or mysterious). This problem traces back to the day when science and alchemy weren't separate; and demonstrable results of alchemy (scientific results, but since there was no science, it was considered magic) were attached to the occult, and as this happened about the same time as the Puritans were running about on witch hunts, and moving to America (and in the process, semi-disconnecting themselves from the context of the culture they came out of), the whole thing's just gotten to be a big mess.

edit (again): and it's not like Christians only sit around and discuss the evils of Harry Potter. It's only one issue among very many, but being as it's one of the few places where fantasy and Christianity intersect, it appears to be larger than it is.

[j. d. worthington]

Very good post, Lith.

On the subject of the meaning of the word; yes, that's its original meaning, but according to most dictionary definitions, the number one meaning these days seems to be "Of, relating to, or dealing with supernatural influences, agencies, or phenomena" (quoting from the American Heritage Dictionary). In which case, I would still argue that the Bible has more to do with promoting such ideas than any fictional book such as HP. But yes, in its more proper -- and original -- sense, it does mean "hidden from view, concealed, secret", etc.

It wasn't until the severe lack of understanding of the English language became so prevalent that all applicatons of the word became so pejorative ("occult source", for instance, occurs in different pieces of literature, referring to the origins of a stream, meaning simply that the source of the stream is unknown or hidden from view -- hardly something necessarly sinister). It is, sadly, just another example of a very idiotic sort of literalness on the part of far too many people, who simply cannot seem to understand the boundary between the figurative and the literal when it comes to writing.

Oh, and just for the record: for those who jokingly mentioned "Bewitched" and "I Dream of Jeannie", etc.... Those were included in such fundamentalist Christian fulminations back when they were first broadcast. I recall actually having such in some of the lesson plans for various classes I either was in or taught when I was going to church..... I'm sorry if this offends, but it really is the truth: such idiocy really deserves little more than sorrow and contempt. This sort of backward thinking is what continues to promote illiteracy and fear and hatred of anything outside a very narrow "norm", rather than building a bridge to understanding....

[Cayal]

Holding a stick and saying Avada Kedavra will kill someone no more than splitting your hands will part a body of water.

[Dave]

It was a good post Lith and explains much. 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. You explain it here:

Originally Posted by Lith

Others believe that all things magical, that have every appearance of being true (this often includes "miracles" by members of other religions and other paranormal activity, conversations with the dead, etc.) is accountable to either demons or to Satan himself. Most evangelicals fall into this category.

My daughter is doing a Philosophy and Ethics AS course. I really wish I was back at school because she gets to go to lectures such as "Did Jesus really perform miracles?" But I guess that is another subject entirely.

[mosaix]

Originally Posted by Lith

Do Christians believe in magic? The answer is that some do, some don't.

If they are Christians then they believe that Christ rose from the dead. Call it what you will - that's magic.

If any other organisation had, as it's head, a leader who had come back to life it would be regarded as magic.

All churches have done a wonderful job of changing the terminology of superstition and magic so that they sound more respectable than they would otherwise.

[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."

[Lith]

JD- Yep, we do promote such views.

It is, sadly, just another example of a very idiotic sort of literalness on the part of far too many people, who simply cannot seem to understand the boundary between the figurative and the literal when it comes to writing.

I agree here too-that's how you end up with televangelists like John Hagee (to date the only one that's absolutely pissed me off whenever I've heard him talk) say that the four horsemen of the Apocalypse are "literal, and they represent death, war, famine, and sickness." Um, excuse me... they're not LITERAL if they REPRESENT something.

Jaire- it may not kill them, but it's still arguably bad for the soul.

mosaix- you could say that; they're both supernatural. However magic implies that the humans that practice it can command the supernatural to their will, whereas miracles are at the discretion of God, and can't be commanded by humans (in addition to the question of where such power comes from).

All churches have done a wonderful job of changing the terminology of superstition and magic so that they sound more respectable than they would otherwise.

I disagree here; the distinction predates all science and comes out of a world in which everyone had a religion, Christian or not, and rationalism as such hadn't really come into being yet.

TPA- there is one further thing about D&D that makes Christians dislike it, and that is the casting of spells within the game- the magic isn't just an element in it (or isn't just a static element); it's something you consciously decide to do. That is, you go through the motions, real or not. Whether or not that's harmful feeds back into my earlier argument about fictional versus "real" magic.

The misappropriation of words is wide-ranging and nearly everyone's guilty of it. As for Creationism- well, that's a topic for another thread, and I have some "words of frustration" for nearly everyone on that subject. All it takes is a little broadening of "day" into "era", and the entire Science vs. Creationism landscape changes. Radically. But this (again) relates to people being unable to distinguish between "literal" and "figurative", even when they have a de facto separation of the two already.

[/minirant]

[quote]Of course, as an atheist, I have objections to the notion that the words "moral" and "religious" are synonymous.[quote]Complete agreement. The morals are an afterthought of religion rather than a reason for it. You could even argue that Christianity is subversively anti-moral, since Jesus ran around breaking Jewish laws and condemning the powers of the day for taking morals over religion.

Yes, we're wary of Yoga. And Tai Chi, Feng Shui, acupuncture, and a whole lot of other stuff. Not because they don't work, but because they're systems based on theoretical energies of a mystical nature (which also feeds back into my earlier arguments of where these powers are coming from, should they somehow actually exist).

As to whether Rowling is a Christian- I read somewhere where she stated (after JPII's declaration about her lifestyle) that she wasn't religious. Which immediately puts her into a different category than Tolkien and Lewis, who were both undeniably devout. Tolkien's use of "magic" is debatable- one of his letters says that "magic" was the word used by the non-elves to describe the technology and wisdom of the elves. So there may actually be no "magic" in Middle Earth. But Lewis embraced magic as magic, and put it to use as a metaphor. (Honestly though, I think if people actually read Lewis, rather than sit back and esteem him as a modern-day example of Christian excellence in literature, we'd see a lot of changes within churches, and in my not-so humble opinion, the effect would be all to the good.)

[mosaix]

mosaix- you could say that; they're both supernatural. However magic implies that the humans that practice it can command the supernatural to their will, whereas miracles are at the discretion of God, and can't be commanded by humans (in addition to the question of where such power comes from).

This is exactly what I meant about churches changing the terminology.


Of course we can't condone magic!

But hey wait a minute what about water into wine and walking on water?

OK, let's call them miracles!

What's the difference?

OK, one's human practice and the other is God's work.


What about Moses and the parting of the sea BTW?

[Lith]

What about Moses striking the rock, and getting a reprimand from God for it?

Your post doesn't really capture the thought of the Christian mind. We don't start from the position that we can't condone magic (because there's an implicit belief there that magic is somehow silly, which is a modern thing- ancient peoples took it very seriously), and then follow through with a justification and an artificial distinction. It's rather more like:

We believe there's only one God. And we believe other gods are false, because other gods can't coexist with our God, and because pagan religions all contradict each other about who did what, so it can't ALL be true.

But these pagans all around us are doing this thing called "magic". They call on their gods, and stuff happens!!! [Remember, this is before science came into its own.]

Where is this power coming from? It's clearly not coming from God, because they didn't call on God, they called on pagan gods, who don't exist. So... what other power out there could be capable of this? It must be Satan, because him and God are involved in a war of attrition, and he'd do anything to break God's heart by leading his people off into false religions. Yep, must be Satan's work.

Therefore, this magic thing's gotta go.

Possibly not the only explanation for these powers, but it's been the dominant one in the church for a very long time.

[LyannaWolfBlood]

Harry Potter only promotes the occult in the sense that it's about magic and people generalise to come up with the occult=magic. The fact that the occult is primarily associated with magic causing harm - which HP definitely is not - doesn't seem to come into it.

[LJonesy]

Originally Posted by Dave

I read that religious fanatics last year in the US burnt bonfires of Harry Potter books. Some schools and libriaries have banned the books. Many Christians, although not going that far, have strong reservations about it, in the same way as they do about celebrating Halloween.

But this report on a Moscow investigation from SciFi Wire goes further:

I used to hear similar things about 'Dungeons and Dragons' in the early 1980's; That it was devil worship etc. In actual fact, it had clear distinctions between Good and Evil characters, and playing Good characters was much more fun than playing Evil ones. Similarily, in Harry Potter, it is always the Good character who wins in the end. They learn about "The Defense against the Dark Arts"

If it is because they practise magic, then they will have to ban 'Bewitched', 'I dream of Genie', 'Charmed', 'Sabrina', 'Buffy', 'Star Wars'.... ... it will be a very long list.

On that list would have to be 'The Chronicles of Narnia' and 'Lord of the Rings' books which deal with the occult, but also have strong Christian values.

So, what are your thoughts?

It's JUST entertainment, Rowling hasn't stated otherwise. So therefore it should be treated that way. I'm a Christian but i haven't seen anything bad about the books.

I mean come on, "Eye of newt" and "Fire burn! Couldron bubble!" That's Shakespeare!

I've heard stuff about Pulman purposely promoting Athiesm in Golden Compass. But that's a different story, and should be treated differently to the HP series.

If it's only meant as entertainment, like Rowling is done, then that's how it should be treated. Pulman (apparently) wants something else, so it should be treated as something else.

Just my thoughts, don't act like i'm imposing here.

[Wiglaf]

Magic, according to an anthropology text of mine, is manioulation of the supernatural by man. If a miracle is an act of God, asked for or not, then magic and miracles are not the same. Magic is under man's control.
I think part of the objection is the glorification of a culture of magic use with man in control of the supernatural. In Narnia the magic takes place in an aternate reality; God can therefore have given differing natural laws.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Wiglaf

In Narnia the magic takes place in an alternate reality; God can therefore have given differing natural laws.

So, I take it that you are saying that Harry Potter is an exceptional case because it takes place in the real world? (Ditto for 'Bewitched' and 'I Dream of Genie'.)

Only that there are plenty of tourists at Kings Cross and Charing Cross Road looking for Platform 9½ and Diagon Alley. You would have expected them to have found them by now if they existed.

Despite my sarcasm, your point is a good one, but Narnia is also accessed via a Wardrobe in our world. Though I agree it should be treated differently, in Pullman's 'His Dark Materials' trilogy there are many other worlds connected to ours and each does have differing natural laws.

Christians like Narnia because it was written by a Christian and contains allegorical Christian messages. They do not like Harry Potter because it reflects more our society today, and therefore despite the theme of redemption at the end of the series, it also contains much 'new age' mystical references.

Another thing, if magic is under man's control and miracles are acts of God, where does Astrology fit in. Bear in mind that according to Matthew, three Magi predicted the birth of Christ by the use of Astrology.