Does the "worshipping Satan" stuff bother anyone else?

[trobotcrow]

Even if I hadn't created this thread, conversations flow. My response was a direct response to someone else's direct response.

We're talking about irrational justifications made by people who are wholly rational. I would be remiss if I didn't offer some analogy to easier prove my point.

[bratpop]

You don't joke about what you believe in. Therefore, they don't believe innocently portrayed fictional children worship the devil. Case closed.

[Doc Steve]

You don't joke about what you believe in. Therefore, they don't believe innocently portrayed fictional children worship the devil. Case closed.

100% Untrue.  As a former United Methodist minister, I can tell you that seminary students' humor largely centers on making fun of things they believe in themselves.  (Not to mention making fun of goofy sounding phrases in Greek, Hebrew, and/or Latin.) 

As I mentioned several pages earlier, there is always a grain of truth in comedy, and I believe that Mike is making a deliberate point.  That is, you have some obligation as an artist to address the "moral" dimension of magic, whereas most modern authors like Rowling tend to ignore or trivialize it.  He even discusses this in Movie Megacheese. 

[bettertomorrowamy]

You don't joke about what you believe in. Therefore, they don't believe innocently portrayed fictional children worship the devil. Case closed.

100% Untrue.  As a former United Methodist minister, I can tell you that seminary students' humor largely centers on making fun of things they believe in themselves.  (Not to mention making fun of goofy sounding phrases in Greek, Hebrew, and/or Latin.) 

As I mentioned several pages earlier, there is always a grain of truth in comedy, and I believe that Mike is making a deliberate point.  That is, you have some obligation as an artist to address the "moral" dimension of magic, whereas most modern authors like Rowling tend to ignore or trivialize it.  He even discusses this in Movie Megacheese. 

I'm not understanding what the ""moral" dimension of magic" is referring to.  Magic isn't moral or immoral since it is slight-of-hand.  Please explain.

[Doc Steve]

You don't joke about what you believe in. Therefore, they don't believe innocently portrayed fictional children worship the devil. Case closed.

100% Untrue.  As a former United Methodist minister, I can tell you that seminary students' humor largely centers on making fun of things they believe in themselves.  (Not to mention making fun of goofy sounding phrases in Greek, Hebrew, and/or Latin.) 

As I mentioned several pages earlier, there is always a grain of truth in comedy, and I believe that Mike is making a deliberate point.  That is, you have some obligation as an artist to address the "moral" dimension of magic, whereas most modern authors like Rowling tend to ignore or trivialize it.  He even discusses this in Movie Megacheese. 

I'm not understanding what the ""moral" dimension of magic" is referring to.  Magic isn't moral or immoral since it is slight-of-hand.  Please explain.

The basic idea is that "magic" and "witchcraft" have moral contexts in traditional Western culture.  They tend not to in modern popular culture.  If this is a deliberate rejection, then fine.  If it is simply intellectual laziness (which I believe is the case the majority of the time), then it is certainly objectionable. 

Please go back a few pages and read my earlier posts.   If that doesn't work for you, I suggest re-reading Movie Megacheese.   I'm at work.  When I get home, I'll give the page reference to the chapter where Mike addresses this. 

 

[bettertomorrowamy]

I think we are disagreeing on the meaning of magic then.  Sorry.

[bratpop]

IF magic existed, people would certainly equate it to some sort of Devil worship. But it doesn't. I think that's the extent of the joke. In this fictional world, certainly muggles would accuse the school of devilry... is that a word?

Anyway, why doesn't anyone ever mention Merlin? Certainly nobody has ever portrayed Merlin as evil. He's one of the classic goodguys. Why is it okay for Merlin, the literary origin for fictional magic, to use magic, but not kids in a book directly inspired by and referencing Merlin? This is where the boundaries of the argument should be. In comparison to other fiction, not to real life religious beliefs about things that don't exist or threaten anyone.

And besides ALL of that, the books are for annoying little British kids. Why would people in the Bible belt care if those kids are corrupted? If anything, they should protest American kids being exposed to British literature.

The whole argument is patently ignorant in the context of using magic to fight evil. I guess it's not okay to acknowledge that part of it. You know, only THE WHOLE POINT OF THE SERIES. If Rowling bloody well says the kids aren't evil, then I guess they're not evil. Or are we forgetting that whole believing in the good nature of people and assuming everyone is a liar. Typical religious persecution based on inane nonsense, where there is no place for argument to begin with. "You said 'sparrow' on a Thursday! You are to be burned at the stake!"

To lump Mike, Kevin and Bill in with those people is the deepest of insults. This isn't about "intelligent" Christians not approving of Wicca.

[ScottotD]

If anything, they should protest American kids being exposed to British literature.

....

[AmandaGal]

Anyway, why doesn't anyone ever mention Merlin? Certainly nobody has ever portrayed Merlin as evil. He's one of the classic goodguys. Why is it okay for Merlin, the literary origin for fictional magic, to use magic, but not kids in a book directly inspired by and referencing Merlin? This is where the boundaries of the argument should be. In comparison to other fiction, not to real life religious beliefs about thing

I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church, as a whole, counts Merlin as evil too. They never said it, but it was always in the context of, "This is what it was like before we were saved."  "before people knew God's word." 

I recall being taught in school that he was a Druid priest and therefore, not good.  Back then Christ's word hadn't spread that far.  Perhaps he just didn't know better.  Arthur was a pagan king, as was common.  Of course he'd have a priest.  Messed up teachings

I did watch the "Sword and the Stone" like other kids though. I wanted to shoot Gorgi.

I do vaguely remember reading a book where Merlin was a manipulative bastard, but I don't recall what it was.  That was when I was older and it was not required reading.

[RoninFox]

I did watch the "Sword and the Stone" like other kids though. I wanted to shoot Gorgi.

The little furry guy who threw himself in the cauldron in a different book based Disney movie?

[Doc Steve]

IF magic existed, people would certainly equate it to some sort of Devil worship. But it doesn't. I think that's the extent of the joke. In this fictional world, certainly muggles would accuse the school of devilry... is that a word?

Anyway, why doesn't anyone ever mention Merlin? Certainly nobody has ever portrayed Merlin as evil. He's one of the classic goodguys. Why is it okay for Merlin, the literary origin for fictional magic, to use magic, but not kids in a book directly inspired by and referencing Merlin? This is where the boundaries of the argument should be. In comparison to other fiction, not to real life religious beliefs about things that don't exist or threaten anyone.

And besides ALL of that, the books are for annoying little British kids. Why would people in the Bible belt care if those kids are corrupted? If anything, they should protest American kids being exposed to British literature.

The whole argument is patently ignorant in the context of using magic to fight evil. I guess it's not okay to acknowledge that part of it. You know, only THE WHOLE POINT OF THE SERIES. If Rowling bloody well says the kids aren't evil, then I guess they're not evil. Or are we forgetting that whole believing in the good nature of people and assuming everyone is a liar. Typical religious persecution based on inane nonsense, where there is no place for argument to begin with. "You said 'sparrow' on a Thursday! You are to be burned at the stake!"

To lump Mike, Kevin and Bill in with those people is the deepest of insults. This isn't about "intelligent" Christians not approving of Wicca.

You have a tendency to undermine your valid points with a lot of rhetoric. 

1.  Paraphase: The whole point of the Harry Potter series is that the main characters fight evil.  That's a great point that pretty much settles the matter within the own terms of that fictional universe.  I have to agree with that.  These are stories for juveniles, after all. 

2.  Quote: "To lump Mike, Kevin and Bill in with those people is the deepest of insults. This isn't about "intelligent" Christians not approving of Wicca."
False dichotomy.  There is an entire spectrum of opinion possible. 

This is a matter of looking at the motivation for a series of remarks that were intended to be humorous.  The original question was something to the effect of: "Are all of these Satanism jokes overkill?"  That's really a matter of opinion or taste in the final analysis.  (Personally, I thought it was a little overused.)  The discussion then shifted to motivation, why it was supposed to be funny, etc. 

There has to be some basis in reality and some context for "humor" to be funny.  Earlier, you claimed that people don't joke about what they believe.  You must know some incredibly dour people.  I find the exact opposite to be true.  Also, if our attempts at humor weren't somewhat true or at least grounded in reality, would they be funny?  For example, people don't invent traits for "insult humor."  The guy with the biggest nose or biggest jug-ears is getting the razz; otherwise, it would just be a random comment. 

The "Satanism" jokes are there because Western culture stigmatizes the occult, or at least has done so in the past.  It's just that simple.  If people associated the practice of magic with purple stuffed bunny rabbits, then there would have been purple stuffed bunny rabbit jokes. 

Additionally, I think that Mike believes that Rowling's presentation of magic is somewhat intellectually dishonest or lazy.  Again, I don't think it's a major axe that he is grinding, but the remarks had to come from somewhere.  Read pages 132-133 of Movie Megacheese (article on Event Horizon).  It is very clear to me that Mike is adopting the position that I have described in that article.  That is, an author looks pretty shallow by raising these sorts of issues (the difference between good and evil, for example), then failing to address them in any meaningful way. 

That's it.  No hidden agenda.  No theological dogma to perpetuate.  Just a suggestion concerning the origin of the remarks. 

By the way, C.S. Lewis wrote quite a lengthy novel dealing with modernity, Christendom, and Merlin:  That Hideous Strength.   (The title refers to a nationalized think tank/corporation, not Merlin.)

[AmandaGal]

I did watch the "Sword and the Stone" like other kids though. I wanted to shoot Gorgi.

The little furry guy who threw himself in the cauldron in a different book based Disney movie?

Yeah. That was the Black Cauldron.  I just wanted to throw that out there. That movie REALLY was awful.   Sword had Archimedes, who wasn't that bad.

[bratpop]

I don't think "Western" culture stigmatizes the occult so much as tolerating the stigmatism held over from European culture. There's probably more occult fascination over here due to lack of ingrained superstitions.

I don't know if Rowling's position is lazy. It could be viewed that way. She basically poo-pooed the mild uproar, but then it really was only a mild, silly uproar, the likes of which we see whenever a Kevin Smith makes a Dogma. It would have been interesting to read some sort of recognition of how magic is viewed in the Harry Potter books, but perhaps it wouldn't be exactly appropriate. I do think they at least hint that the whole reason the wizarding world is separate is on account of the whole burning witches at the stake. I don't suppose they could actually prove they aren't evil, so no point dwelling on it. They fight evil, and they don't have to answer to anyone. I mean, I think the books are very much from a Disney point of view on magic. If the movies were cartoons, it wouldn't be half the fuss. It is a LITTLE weird when you compare it to something like the Wizard of Oz, which has evil witches (and good ones too, but primarily they're used in a traditional way). I can't think of any passage specifically that addresses the irony that most witches are just working class folks, but then, isn't the whole series rather tongue in cheek? When you consider that their brooms are valued merchandise and they use them in a soccer-like sport, and they use magic to make candy and moving pictures in newspapers, there's clearly nothing malicious going on. It's akin to Casper the Friendly Ghost. Obviously ghosts are evil, but you don't have to make lengthy excuses for something that goofy. If Jo had intended the books to have a cultlike following, she probably would have taken it a little more seriously, if not as much as the readers (or zealots who hate reading) do. But since she clearly doesn't hold the belief that magic is evil, and the books are written with whimsy in mind, you can't blame her for being "lazy" about the responsibility. It would be patently absurd if they referenced the Devil in the books as a real entity and said they didn't worship him.

So yeah, magic can have a stigmatism, but is one required to address the religious aspect? It's "Magic Kingdom" kind of magic. Like a really good key lime pie is magic. Like Jesus is magic. Like you just want to have a wonderful, magical time at Christmas. I mean, I'll be damned if Santa isn't magic (and of course he's probably also Satan). But then he also is famous for fighting Satan. I guess you can't really win. But it's just this side of having to explain science fiction because creationists think science is evil.

Anyway, didn't the Satanism jokes stem from the Christian religious symbols in the movie, not just from the magic itself? I recall them starting with the Christmas scenes, maybe I'm wrong.

Though considering the source, remembering the unmistakable DEMON FROM HELL in Merlin's Shop of Mystical Wonders would make the association as automatic as giant turtles and Gamera. I mean, ya got a fairly harmless Merlin there who seems to be good natured, yet he owns a book which can summon demons. You have to wonder. 

BTW I ordered Movie Megacheese today since you mentioned it. Tell Mike he owes you. (Not really, it's a used copy.)

[Doc Steve]

I don't think "Western" culture stigmatizes the occult so much as tolerating the stigmatism held over from European culture. There's probably more occult fascination over here due to lack of ingrained superstitions.

I don't know if Rowling's position is lazy. It could be viewed that way. She basically poo-pooed the mild uproar, but then it really was only a mild, silly uproar, the likes of which we see whenever a Kevin Smith makes a Dogma. It would have been interesting to read some sort of recognition of how magic is viewed in the Harry Potter books, but perhaps it wouldn't be exactly appropriate. I do think they at least hint that the whole reason the wizarding world is separate is on account of the whole burning witches at the stake. I don't suppose they could actually prove they aren't evil, so no point dwelling on it. They fight evil, and they don't have to answer to anyone. I mean, I think the books are very much from a Disney point of view on magic. If the movies were cartoons, it wouldn't be half the fuss. It is a LITTLE weird when you compare it to something like the Wizard of Oz, which has evil witches (and good ones too, but primarily they're used in a traditional way). I can't think of any passage specifically that addresses the irony that most witches are just working class folks, but then, isn't the whole series rather tongue in cheek? When you consider that their brooms are valued merchandise and they use them in a soccer-like sport, and they use magic to make candy and moving pictures in newspapers, there's clearly nothing malicious going on. It's akin to Casper the Friendly Ghost. Obviously ghosts are evil, but you don't have to make lengthy excuses for something that goofy. If Jo had intended the books to have a cultlike following, she probably would have taken it a little more seriously, if not as much as the readers (or zealots who hate reading) do. But since she clearly doesn't hold the belief that magic is evil, and the books are written with whimsy in mind, you can't blame her for being "lazy" about the responsibility. It would be patently absurd if they referenced the Devil in the books as a real entity and said they didn't worship him.

So yeah, magic can have a stigmatism, but is one required to address the religious aspect? It's "Magic Kingdom" kind of magic. Like a really good key lime pie is magic. Like Jesus is magic. Like you just want to have a wonderful, magical time at Christmas. I mean, I'll be damned if Santa isn't magic (and of course he's probably also Satan). But then he also is famous for fighting Satan. I guess you can't really win. But it's just this side of having to explain science fiction because creationists think science is evil.

Anyway, didn't the Satanism jokes stem from the Christian religious symbols in the movie, not just from the magic itself? I recall them starting with the Christmas scenes, maybe I'm wrong.

Though considering the source, remembering the unmistakable DEMON FROM HELL in Merlin's Shop of Mystical Wonders would make the association as automatic as giant turtles and Gamera. I mean, ya got a fairly harmless Merlin there who seems to be good natured, yet he owns a book which can summon demons. You have to wonder. 

BTW I ordered Movie Megacheese today since you mentioned it. Tell Mike he owes you. (Not really, it's a used copy.)

You would probably like That Hideous Strength by C.S. Lewis also.  It is the third book of a trilogy, but you don't need to read the first two (at all).

As you mention, Rowling couldn't have anticipated that her books would receive the same level of attention as say, The Lord of the Rings.  (Nor did Tolkien expect it, he just provided all the background information for kicks anyway.)   In contrast, the Potter books are lacking in that TLOTR definitely has a well-developed religious and/or spiritual dimension.  For example, the Istari, the Order of Wizards, are actually similar to angels.  They were sent to Middle Earth by the Creator.  (Thus, Saruman is akin to Lucifer in that he is a fallen angel.) 

Here's the difference, though.  Hobbits may be childlike, but they are not children.  TLOTR is first and foremost a series for adults or young adults.  The Rowling books are aimed at a younger audience.  Also, Harry is younger.  Frodo is around 35-36 when he sets out for Rivendell.  You couldn't just dump all of that information on Harry all at once like Gandalf does in The Fellowship of the Ring.   Therefore, we the readers don't learn about it in any systematic way in the first two Potter books (and movies). 

Whether or not it is fair to criticize J.K. Rowling on this score is an entirely different issue, I suppose.  I would hope that it comes to the forefront as Harry and his readership grew older. 

[RoninFox]

I did watch the "Sword and the Stone" like other kids though. I wanted to shoot Gorgi.

The little furry guy who threw himself in the cauldron in a different book based Disney movie?

Yeah. That was the Black Cauldron.  I just wanted to throw that out there. That movie REALLY was awful.   Sword had Archimedes, who wasn't that bad.

Just wanted to clarify, personally I agree that Gorgi was annoying as hell.  I liked Archimedes in Sword though.