Mudcat Café message #597941 The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #41427   Message #597941
Posted By: John Hardly
22-Nov-01 - 08:40 PM
Thread Name: BS: Harry Potter: Good or Bad Witch part II
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Potter: Good or Bad Witch part ll
Well,
As a fundamentalist Christian I can tell you that I have no problem with HP. I rather enjoyed it and think it's a better than average kid's book. I would take Harry as a model for 11 year old behavior over the typical TV sitcom 11 year old any day (or is he 10?---I forget). He has a polite unassuming pleasantness to his nature.

I suppose I could acquiesce my claim to the name "Fundamentalist" 'cept that I truly believe it is I not "they" who have right claim to it. I say this because I believe in the fundamentals of the faith.

I will be quick to admit that it is tough sometimes to determine those things in which I might have a voice and will draw a line of suitable behavior for others.

I do think there are behaviors which my faith informs me are in society's best interest to adhere to. As I have a voice in that society I will take measures in my power to see that that remains the norm (no murder, theft, etc)

Here's where I think the Fundamentalist pretenders have it wrong. One of the very defining fundamentals is that God looks on the heart. Behavior, while important, is secondary (a by-product of belief, if you will). The interesting thing about how this should inform one's view of governing other's behaviors------no "fundamentalist" would ever believe that he could save a person's soul (let alone the society or the world) by forcing certain behaviors.

I will admit to personal struggles as to how this affects my views on homosexuality and the society. I am inclined to think that it doesn't affect society as a whole and therefore not make any decisions within my power to limit homosexual's rights (like, for instance vote for a candidate whose goal is to limit homosexuality). I've talked with a few of my friends who are gay and it only leaves me less convinced---on the one hand they are, to a man, very unhappy individuals----on the other hand, so are lots of us who face the day to day struggles of a confusing world. I will on the other hand be the last guy on the block to accept pedophilia regardless of how acceptable it has become. This is because the larger principle of a helpless victim is now in the mix.

I do think there is another, larger principle in question. How to deal with the religious. On this forum it is allowable and frequent that hate for Christianity is expressed. That's probably as it should be, and to be expected because of the manner in which the "Fundamentalists" seem bent on picking a fight (of the most banal and trivial nature). Still, I think the larger reason for the distain comes from a longtime western way of percieving religions living peacably together. We claim to a goal of "pluralism"----that is (or has become) a very patronizing view of religion that accepts as truth that all religions are equally duped, wrong and are to be tolerated only insofar as they understand that what they believe isn't objectively true *wink wink*

The trouble with this world veiw of "pluralism" instead of "tolerance" is that 1.The religious don't believe that they aren't believing objective truth, and 2.Though nobody can empirically prove the veracity of a religion, nobody can empirically prove the contrary either.

The world continues to hold to the pluralistic model however and then is SHOCKED when an incident like 9/11 happens. All religions are equally wrong-headed, and nobody really believes that stuff.

A "tolerance" model would understand that the religious believe what they believe and would be able to determine from those beliefs whether they could or could not share living space with those of an intolerable religion.

I didn't state that well. What I mean is that tolerance can be modified by reason----if one religion threatens the rights of another belief system, its acceptance into a society can be questioned. Pluralism makes allowance for every and anything despite its threat to the common good---------because at its core pluralism cannot make an assertion of one belief's "superiority" over another's.

As to limiting anyone's right to see Harry Potter? put me firmly in the "that's rather silly" camp.