Talk:Religious debates over the Harry Potter series/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Bible quote in HP7

Is it worth a mention that JKRowling uses a Bible quotation on the grave of Ignotius near Godric's Hollow during the "Deathly Hallows"? The verse is Matthew 6:21 "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also" or indeed Luke 12:34. Could be used to further the point of JK's use of Christian imagery.

Not sure. Unless it can be tied to a secondary source it might be OR to link it to this debate. Serendipodous 13:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a big list of Christian references in the books on this page, and I don't think we should start compiling one; we don't need to insert any novel arguments on behalf of one side or the other.--Pharos 05:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is pretty offensive towards Satanists and Satanism, I see nothing wrong with Satanists66.203.169.145 01:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Mind pointing out what's offensive? We can't improve anything if we don't know what the problem is. --Laugh! 01:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't explain anything from the Satanist's point of view, there's nothing wrong with Satanism, how can it be controversial to accuse the books of promoting it?--66.203.169.229 19:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't claim that Satanism is bad; it claims that the Christian right thinks it is, and that the books, since they supposedly promote it, are therefore bad as well. Serendipodous 19:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good job on the article, guys.

Coherent and informative. Keep it up. Ichormosquito 05:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey I just want to say something. Im always telling wiccans, "how can your religion be fulfilling when it came from T.V?" and they're always like, "no,no, Harry Potter doesn't have much wicca in it." But the thing is,whether HP is just a wiccaless silly story or not, people become "Wiccans" because of it and I've seen it happen.

Wiccan is nothing like harry potter, but I wouldnt be surprised if a couple peopel converted through Harry potter.Dragon queen4ever 19:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus Camp

Is there any particular place in the article where it could be noted how Becky Fischer attacked the books in Jesus Camp? Was that segment noteable enough for a mention at any rate? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish Opposition

Has there been any major Jewish opposition to the books? Valley2city 23:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Not that I can see. Indeed, if Google is any guide, Jews seem intent on appropriating Harry as one of their own. Serendipodous 19:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why the FAC failed

I think I understand why the FAC failed. The root problem is one of WP:UNDUE in that, because of the scope of the article, the focus falls almost entirely on a certain fringe group of conservative Christians. This comes across as unbalanced (though it's certainly unintentional), especially to people who feel that the fringe anti-Potterites "don't represent me" and that giving them this prominence disparages mainstream Christians in some way. And the article is rather more detailed than it has to be on a number of points, focusing on quite minor persons and events for significant stretches. For example (and this is an example I partially contributed to myself), I'm not sure its wholly proportionate to say at least three book burnings, in Alamogordo, New Mexico, Penn Township, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania and Greenville, Michigan, when instead we could be equally informative with several small book burnings full stop (with footnotes to articles on the three cases). But such overly expansive treatment may be necessary when we are dealing with such a small topic. So, how to avoid the "small fish in a small pond" problem? My suggestion is to broaden the pond. Rather than the focus on "Religious opposition", we could expand the topic to cover "Religious views" more broadly, or even better to cover all issues of "Morality" in the Harry Potter books.--Pharos 03:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"Religious views" I can deal with (though it would effectively mean this article would never end). I'd stay away from "morality" though; that's a dangerously subjective word, and immediately implies a judgement on the part of the writer. As a moral relativist (an admittedly unpopular position in this era of Richard Dawkins and Osama bin Laden), I don't think it's possible to objectively discuss issues of morality. Serendipodous 05:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking more of "Morality in Harry Potter" i.e. literary criticism of the treatment of good and evil in the books (which I understand is a major theme—excuse me I'm not actually a Potter fan, I just got interested in this article for some strange reason), rather than "Morality of Harry Potter". That would really marginalize the treatment of the fringe groups, as the majority of the article wouldn't even be about anything "controversial", but then again that would be a very different article.--Pharos 06:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that "morality" would be quite POV. Some people can't see past the witchcraft and sorcery part of the book so no matter how much "good vs. evil" and "making the right decisions", it is still all evil to many. People will fight to the death on this fundamental, believe me. Valley2city 18:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I removed the Deathly Hallows addition

Not only was it uncited, it focused entirely on the views of a single person with no attempt to balance the opinion (Tip for the uninitiated: one person stating his opinion is not a controversy; a controversy implies a conflict of views). Secondly, while it drew attention to the critic's claim that God "dies" in Harry Potter, it failed to explain why the critic feels that way, particularly in light of the fact that "Deathly Hallows" contains a blindingly obvious Passion/Resurrection allegory. [1] Serendipodous 06:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit: Located online article, and placed it with secular discussion. Serendipodous 11:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I thought what Harry goes through in Deathly Hallows had more in common with what happens to Capt. John Sheridan in seasons 3 & 4 of the science fiction series Babylon 5 than any Christian Resurrection story. LamontCranston 9:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I just added a source-filled summary of Christian allegory in Hallows. I tried to find other points of view, but couldn't locate any. The consensus was overwhelmingly Christian. This may change over time, though. Feel free to add to it if you can find any good sources countering this belief. Wrad 01:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism of Gloucester Cathedral

Sadly I've moved from the UK now, but at the time the first Harry Potter film was made, the main part of Gloucester Cathedral in England was used. Subsequently a number of stained glass windows were broken in protest. The police eventually arrested and charged members of a fundamentalist Christian group and, if memory serves, gained a conviction for criminal damage. I don't have access any more to the archives of the Gloucester Citizen newspaper, which covered the events, but I do remember it being discussed in the local news media. If someone can find some sources, it might be worth adding details of it here. Just a thought. Whisperwolf 03:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I searched for info on this and found a BBC article about it. Hopefully this will help. --Andrewlp1991 17:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I can't find any mentions that a Christian group was responsible though. Serendipodous 15:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic section

I've extensivly edited and referenced the Catholic section. Are there other issues that need to be addressed in the section, or can the "expert needed" template be removed? Gentgeen 06:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does mentioning the Biblical quotations qualify as OR?

Rowling makes no overt mention that the quotes are Biblical in origin, and it is possible (though very unlikely) that the concordances are coincidental. Serendipodous 15:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Most sources I read said that they were obviously biblical, so it isn't OR. These were pretty neutral sources, as well, such as Newsweek and Newsday. I think that to say otherwise would be OR, basing content on personal opinion rather than reputable sources, although if someone can find a similar source stating that they aren't biblical, I wouldn't be opposed to adding that in alongside the others. Wrad 15:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
An earlier para simply stated that Rowling employed Biblical quotes and used the Bible itself as a reference. I've incorporated one of the quotes along with a source explicitly comparing it to Harry Potter into the Deathly Hallows section and removed the paragraph. Serendipodous 16:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I was wondering what part you were referring to. It wouldn't be correct to say that Rowling said something she didn't say, yes. :) Wrad 20:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I had to fix some recent edits to the Hallows section. A few of them weren't supported by the refs listed, and an important Rowling quote that was the highlight of several reviews of the book was removed. I fixed all of this. I hadto remove one biblical quote comparison without a source. I'll see if I can find a source for it. Wrad 23:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Oops, I see that the quote is in the article twice. Wrad 02:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts on expanding the intro?

The article has outgrown its intro and it needs to be expanded. Thoughts? Serendipodous 16:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe three paragraphs, one on allegations, one on challenges, and the last on responses by Rowling and others. Wrad 02:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoilers??

I don't know if it's really worth adding a spoiler tag, but there's a very major Deathly Hallows spoiler in the Deathly Hallows paragraph. 68.80.168.110 20:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, spoiler tags are deemed unnecessary if the article already makes perfectly clear, as that last section does, that it will discuss the book in detail. Serendipodous 06:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I don't know what else to do

I don't think I can ever make this article acceptable to everyone. No matter how neutral I make it, I'm going to offend somebody. I would like to see this article reach FA level, but I don't think religious people are going to allow it, because they don't want their faith depicted in this way. Serendipodous 06:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link 56

One of the most important sources in this article, link 56, is now dead because the page has been shifted to the site's archive. Unfortunately I can't access the archive without paying a fee, so until I can get ahold of it I've linked to a forum cut-and-paste. Hardly a viable substitute, but the information, at least, is there. Serendipodous 07:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean the AP story on Mallory? It's almost always possible to find another mirror of an AP story, and I've added one (your forum link had already been deleted on their end).--Pharos 22:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see, and I've now fixed the other one too with the Internet Archive#Wayback Machine].--Pharos 23:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rowling talks about religion in the book

To the main page editors: this report should prove fruitful in the improving of this article. Best, Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Very nice find. Wrad 04:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Added :-) Serendipodous 09:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dumbledore is gay responses

I've garnered a number of responses to this issue, but I'm not sure where to put them. Rowling's responses? Wrad 20:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Bring them over to User talk:Raystorm. We've been gathering them up in preparation for the coming storm, though as yet it still doesn't seem to be coming. It probably should have its own section if it's included, but it's important not to overstate the issue. So far, this revelation has provoked a stronger response from gays and liberals, who were pissed off she didn't have the guts to out him on paper, than from fundies, who already decided the books were evil years ago anyway. Serendipodous 20:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Oops, already added it. I actually did find a good bit of religious response, though, as you can see, including a statement by Laura Mallory. Could we move that discussion here? it would be easier for me to keep track of. Wrad 21:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
reworked it with citations from raystorm's talk page. The comment in the addition about Rita Skeeter doesn't seem supported by any sources that I can find, so I took it down. Serendipodous 22:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone deleted all the religious responses. That's what this article should focus on most! We need them back. I think there were good things about both versions, though, so we should definitely discuss it. Wrad 22:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted two recent edits by Serendipodous because, although they're well sourced, they concentrate overwhelmingly on negative responses to the announcement and thus give a rather one-sided view of the religious debate. We should be careful not to inflate the statements of a few noisy nay-sayers who are critical of a book which is phenomenally successful with many people throughout the world, whether religiously observant or not. --Tony Sidaway 22:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
This article is about religious debates over the Harry Potter series. Of course I would be happy to include positive responses about Dumbledore's sexuality, as long as they are religious responses. So far, I haven't found any, and I've been looking. This section is not merely about the revelation that Dumbledore is gay. Serendipodous 22:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
It's most inappropriate to present a debate in a manner that restricts reporting of responses on an issue of public importance to those opinions expressed only by those who proclaim themselves to be expressing the opinion of their deity. Doing so, as I've indicated, gives a false impression of the nature of the debate. --Tony Sidaway 22:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. Most religious people, whatever their stripe, believe themselves to be doing the will of their deity. They wouldn't be religious if they didn't. Since this article deals with the opinions, positive and negative, expressed by religious people over the issues raised by Harry Potter, it is only natural that religious people be presented on this issue. I personally was not in favour of posting this section until a wider range of Christian opinions came online, but I felt that if it was to be posted, it should at least be specific and mention specific responses.Serendipodous 22:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to agree at least a little that we should get more positive responses, but I don't know that the current version is too terribly biased. A lot of Christians think it's great, so we should probably highlight that a bit more, if we can find it. I also feel that the new version doesn't explain that the books aren't actually explicit about the issue. This article is about the book series, after all. Wrad 22:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
To be on the safe side, I've inviso-texted the section until this issue is resolved. Serendipodous 22:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The criteria you're using here guarantee that only the opinions of certain religious extremists will be put into the article. It may be that many religiously observant people don't have a problem with any aspect of the Harry Potter novels, but because they don't have a problem they don't make a statement that gets into print, nor are their opinions sought, thus we're left with an unbalanced article because your criteria for inclusion are flawed. Moreoever the presumption that only religiously observant people are qualified to give an opinion on religious matters also weights the debate unduly. --Tony Sidaway 22:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The fact that Dumbledore is gay is not a religious matter. Only the religious response to it is. Homosexuality has nothing to do with religion, anymore than race or gender does. Only how religions react to it. Serendipodous 22:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Certainly we can include responses to the religious responses. There are plenty of those. Wrad 22:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[outdent]-That wouldn't resolve the issue of anti-religious bias; only turn the section into a "secularism vs. religion" debate. The only way to make the topic neutral is to find positive religious responses to Dumbledore's homosexuality. Serendipodous 22:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


Including responses to religious responses would be a start, though most such responses might amount to "sheesh! fundies!" This is the problem, really. Some religious people take these matters very seriously but if nobody else takes any notice we're misrepresenting their complaints if we call it a "debate".
Given my drothers I'd just reduce the emphasis on matters such as occultism and in particular the pantomime that passes for religious thinking in much of the USA, and more on the Inklings and more on the religious allegories which are really present in many of the novels in the series but are particularly explicit in the final novel. These matter carry much more weight.
Perhaps this sounds a little harsh, but I think we're doing religion a disservice if we're giving the impression that the only religious debates arising from the Harry Potter series are over whether or not it promotes godless paganism and sexual perversion. --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the Inklings only make up a tiny fraction of the debate over Harry Potter and religion. The vast majority of the notable events that have occurred vis a vis religion have involved occultism/witchcraft. That's just the way it is. We may be doing religion a disservice by revealing this, but we would be doing reality a disservice by lessening its impact. Serendipodous 23:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
We are limited to what the sources say. I myself was incredibly greatful when in the third book so many of the Christian symbols came out so strongly. This whole gay thing has just swung things the other direction for Christians who just won't open their eyes at all. Many of these Christians are my friends and even relatives. It's really weird, but it's a huge part of the debate about the series. I literally can't discuss the series at all with a number of my friends because they are absolutely convinced it's evil. Why? That's what this article tries to explain. It also tries to explain the point of view that such ideas are ludicrous. Wrad 23:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
In a world with openly gay priests and openly gay bishops, I think we're seriously overbalancing the article if we're writing so much on negative concerns over Dumbledore's homosexuality, allegations of satanism and whatnot, when it's absolutely clear that this is a non-issue for most religiously observant people. This is akin to writing an article about ufology that gives undue weight to claims of little green men, high level conspiracies, and the like. Good television, as we're aware, but not a good representation of the actual debate.
Moreover Rowling is an English writer. In her home country the allegations of satanism and whatnot are taken even less seriously than in the United States, where the bulk of the fundamentalists live. The Inklings are much more prominent in the context of English religious thinking over Rowling's writing. I fear that we're in danger of letting sensationalist journalism overwhelm and dominate the debate. Good evidence for this is a recent report (cited in the article I believe) over a recent reading in Canada, where members of the invited audience were bombarded with questions about Dumbledore's sexuality both before and after the reading, but the question was not raised throughout the session. --Tony Sidaway 23:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
If you can find more sources for all that, please add it. Wrad 23:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Globally, the Anglican position on anything at all, let alone sexuality, is decidedly a minority view. The fundamentalist position on Harry Potter is more likely to be the view of the majority of religious people worldwide, particularly in third-world countries. This article gives plenty of voice to positive views on the books from religious figures, including fundamentalists. The issue with the Gay Dumbledore is that the backlash hasn't even begun yet. Any positive religious views on the subject won't start appearing until the anti-backlash gets underway, which won't be for a while. Serendipodous 23:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe let's just list the sources we have, positive, negative, neutral. Wrad 22:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Here are all my direct sources. None positive so far:

[2][3][4][5] Serendipodous 23:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

All of mine are negative as well. Perhaps we should just give it some time. Wrad 00:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what Serendipodous means by "the Anglican position", unless he's taking my comment on the Inklings as an expression of sympathy with those writers. I've not trying to assert the predominance of any religious position over any other. However I think it's reasonable to state that the extreme religion-based anti-Harry Potter positions are overwhelmed by the sheer popularity of the books. To state that there's a serious debate about whether Rowling's work is anti-religious is simply false. We've been here before. This is very much like a rerun of the creationism nonsense we used to see hanging around in the fringes of our articles on evolution. --Tony Sidaway 02:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but this isn't an article about evolution, it's an article about religion. And it really isn't that biased at all. If you really read through the article, both sides are presented. To a brit, it may seem a bit weird, but we cover everything here, not just the brits. We say what the sources say. What else can we say? Really, it's not as bad asy you're saying. I think you're looking at all the cultish stuff with a magnifying glass and shrinking the more reasonable things in the article so that you can hardly see them. The article is fine. It presents both sides. It follows the sources. We're talking in circles here... Wrad 02:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The changes

Let's concentrate on the recently expanded section over Dumbledore's sexuality. We had this:

Dumbledore's sexuality
Rowling stated at a fan meeting at Carnegie Hall on October 19, 2007 that Dumbledore was written as a gay character, an announcement which received a standing ovation from the crowd. The issue came up, she said, as she was reviewing the script for the sixth Harry Potter movie, and noticed a scene where Dumbledore recalls a relationship he once had with a woman. She explained that she had always seen Dumbledore as a gay character. This came as a surprise to many, as the only hints to this affect given in the series are Dumbeldore's close friendship with Grindelwald, which Rowling explicitly stated led to Dumbledore's falling in love with him, and Rita Skeeter the tabloid writer's statement that Dumbledore "took an unnatural interest in" Harry Potter (at no point are Skeeter's allegations confirmed in the series). Rowling's announcement caused quite a stir in the debate over the religious nature of the stories. Those who previously argued that the books were anti-Christian in nature, such as Laura Mallory (a book challenger mentioned above), take Rowling's recent statements as proof that their stance is correct. Others argue that Rowling's statement is only her opinion about the text, and that it can be interpreted either way. Still others have applauded her openness about the issue.(ref O'Brient, Kathleen. "THE WORD IS OUT: J.K. Rowling says Dumbledore is gay, but what do fans think?" The Star-Ledger (Newark, New Jersey) October 26, 2007. pg. 43.) (refKloer, Phil. "Dumbledore's gay? A caldron of reactions." The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. October 23, 2007. SECTION: LIVING; Pg. 1E)(ref Burris, Joe. "ALBUS DUMBLEDORE CAST IN A NEW LIGHT; MONTHS AFTER `POTTER' MANIA, AUTHOR SAYS THE WIZARD IS GAY." The Baltimore Sun. October 23, 2007. SECTION: TODAY; Pg. 1C.)(ref Washington, Julie E. "Potter fans do a Dumbledore doubletake." Newhouse News Service. October 23, 2007. SECTION: ENTERTAINMENT.)(ref Italie, Hillel. "Outing gives new meaning to passages about wizard Dumbledore in Harry Potter books." The Associated Press. October 22, 2007. SECTION: BUSINESS NEWS.)

I jumped in and edited it to this. I seem to recall that the main intent was to make the section more readable.

Dumbledore's sexuality
Rowling stated at a fan meeting at Carnegie Hall on October 19, 2007 that Dumbledore was written as a gay character, an announcement which received a standing ovation from the crowd. The issue came up, she said, as she was reviewing the script for the sixth Harry Potter movie, and noticed a scene where Dumbledore recalls a relationship he once had with a woman. She explained that she had always seen Dumbledore as a gay character.
This came as a surprise to most readers, as the only hints to this effect given in the series are Dumbeldore's close friendship with Grindelwald, and Rita Skeeter the tabloid writer's statement that Dumbledore "took an unnatural interest" in Harry Potter (at no point are Skeeter's allegations confirmed in the series).
Rowling's announcement that this close friendship led to Dumbledore's falling in love with Grindelwald caused quite a stir in the debate over the religious nature of the stories. Those who previously argued that the books were anti-Christian in nature, such as Laura Mallory (one of those who tried to have the book banned from schools), take Rowling's recent statements as proof that their stance is correct. Others argue that Rowling's statement is only her opinion about the text, and that it can be interpreted either way. Still others have applauded her openness about the issue. (ref O'Brient, Kathleen. "THE WORD IS OUT: J.K. Rowling says Dumbledore is gay, but what do fans think?" The Star-Ledger (Newark, New Jersey) October 26, 2007. pg. 43.)(ref Kloer, Phil. "Dumbledore's gay? A caldron of reactions." The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. October 23, 2007. SECTION: LIVING; Pg. 1E)(ref Burris, Joe. "ALBUS DUMBLEDORE CAST IN A NEW LIGHT; MONTHS AFTER `POTTER' MANIA, AUTHOR SAYS THE WIZARD IS GAY." The Baltimore Sun. October 23, 2007. SECTION: TODAY; Pg. 1C.)(ref Washington, Julie E. "Potter fans do a Dumbledore doubletake." Newhouse News Service. October 23, 2007. SECTION: ENTERTAINMENT.)(ref Italie, Hillel. "Outing gives new meaning to passages about wizard Dumbledore in Harry Potter books." The Associated Press. October 22, 2007. SECTION: BUSINESS NEWS.)

It was then edited to this.

Dumbledore's sexuality
On 19 October 2007, Rowling gave a Q&A at New York's Carnegie Hall. When asked by a fan whether Dumbledore, "who believed in the prevailing power of love, ever [fell] in love himself", Rowling replied, "My truthful answer to you... I always thought of Dumbledore as gay. ... Dumbledore fell in love with Grindelwald, and that that added to his horror when Grindelwald showed himself to be what he was ... falling in love can blind us to an extent ... he was very drawn to this brilliant person, and horribly, terribly let down by him."(ref J. K. Rowling at Carnegie Hall Reveals Dumbledore is Gay; Neville Marries Hannah Abbott, and Much More (2007). Retrieved on 2007-10-27.)
In a Q&A three days later in Toronto, she responded to questions about Dumbledore's "outing" by saying that she had decided his sexuality "from very early on. Probably before the first book was published," and that, "It is what it is. He is my character and as my character, I have the right to know what I know about him and say what I say about him."(ref Toronto Press Conference. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (2007). Retrieved on 2007-10-27.)
Christians critical of Harry Potter responded enthusiastically to the revelation. "My first response was, 'Thank you, Lord,'" said Christian author Berit Kjos, "because this helps us show others that these books should not be used in the churches to illustrate Christianity. Because Dumbledore has been revealed as a homosexual, it helps me communicate my message. It helps Christians who are concerned about the use of Harry Potter books in churches, because it makes it very clear that these books are not intended to be Christian, that Rowling isn't speaking as a Christian. She has introduced values that are contrary to the Biblical message."[1] Laura Mallory responded to the news by telling US network ABC, "My prayer is that parents would wake up, that the subtle way this is presented as harmless fantasy would be exposed for what it really is: a subtle indoctrination into anti-Christian values ... A homosexual lifestyle is a harmful one. That's proven, medically."[2]Linda Harvey, the president of Mission America, an organisation which, "monitors both the homosexual agenda directed at children as well as paganism among American youth,"[3]
"Will we allow our kids to believe it would be perfectly appropriate for the headmaster of any school to be homosexual?" she asked, "Will some find ways to re-cast homosexuality into something different than the "abomination" it's called in Scripture? Will it become something more like a sad disability, one that the "mean religious right" targets for nefarious purposes?"(ref name=harvey )
  • O'Brient, Kathleen. "THE WORD IS OUT: J.K. Rowling says Dumbledore is gay, but what do fans think?" The Star-Ledger (Newark, New Jersey) October 26, 2007. pg. 43.
  • Kloer, Phil. "Dumbledore's gay? A caldron of reactions." The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. October 23, 2007. SECTION: LIVING; Pg. 1E
  • Burris, Joe. "ALBUS DUMBLEDORE CAST IN A NEW LIGHT; MONTHS AFTER `POTTER' MANIA, AUTHOR SAYS THE WIZARD IS GAY." The Baltimore Sun. October 23, 2007. SECTION: TODAY; Pg. 1C.
  • Washington, Julie E. "Potter fans do a Dumbledore doubletake." Newhouse News Service. October 23, 2007. SECTION: ENTERTAINMENT.

Now I think the earlier versions had their problems. There was this vague handwaving, "Others argue..." and "still others..." However the later version is simply a piling-on of negative views that are obviously not representative of any kind of religious debate, but only show that there are extremists who will exploit prejudices about sexuality, and there are journalists who will publish what they say. At the same time we're seeing reports of indifference amongst pre-invited fans ("The topic had simply not come up." [6]) We're not seeing this because the Reverend Rentaquote and his litigious flock have been coming out with quite predictable and quite ignorable nonsense. When the only "religious" statements that are being published are the words of the lunatic fringe, we should not feel obliged to give undue prominence to that fringe. --Tony Sidaway 03:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not that bad. The first part of the third paragraph in the last example highlights a positive religious reaction. Again, you seem to be magnifying the problem beyond what it actually is. Wrad 03:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Not exactly. The enthusiasm was more do to with the fact that it confirmed what the Potter-bashers had been saying all along. A lot were happy because they felt it proved them right. Yes. It is very negative. Which is why I didn't want to post this section in the first place; there aren't enough published reactions to create a comprehensive, balanced report. There may be in the future, but not now. Serendipodous 07:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I've reinstated it

The Christian Coalition and Pat Robertson have weighed in. These aren't Reverend Rentaquote; these are the heavy hitters. They got George Bush elected. Serendipodous 17:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should add one more source highlighting a positive reaction to the idea that he's gay. Wrad 17:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
From whom though? Serendipodous 17:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't matter much, religious or non-religious. Wrad 18:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The Christian Coalition and Pat Robertson are precisely the kind of populists to whom I would emphatically refer as "The Reverend Rentaquote". I think there's a serious difference of opinion here over what constitutes a religious debate and the statements of those quasi-political factions that are quite common in the United States. We are giving far, far too much prominence to a small faction of evangelical extremists whose views are largely irrelevant to the broader dialogue of their respective churches. --Tony Sidaway 17:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
What evidence do you have to support this point of view? Half of Americans take the Bible literally. Half of Americans believe homosexuality is immoral. The Christian Coalition has two million members. I think you're the one whose view is skewed. Serendipodous 18:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
So what would you change, exactly? Wrad 17:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
So what would you change, exactly? Wrad 17:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see. You'd add a dispute tag. Not all that constructive, really. Serendipodous 18:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Remember here that we're not writing about the views of the ignorant and the uninformed, but specifically about religious debates related to the Harry Potter books. The Jack Chick-style nonsense is somewhat overplayed in this article. Adding in the rubbish about Dumbledore's sexuality is skewing it further. The possible influence of, and relation to, the Inklings, is of more relevance to Rowling's work, and it's becoming clear that the religious objectors to her work are a tiny fringe minority and their religious objections aren't taken seriously by the vast majority of religious observants. --Tony Sidaway 18:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Not from sources I've read, except for what is already in the article. Have you been reading anything which suggests this more than the article already does? Wrad 18:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The most eloquent statement I've seen on this matter was one to which I have already alluded. In an article on an appearance by Rowling in Canada, it was stated that the young pre-invited audience was bombarded with questions on Dumbledore's sexuality both before and after the event, but they reported that the issue had not been raised. Perhaps we could add that in, to set the views of the noisy extremists in perspective. --Tony Sidaway 18:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Which has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Serendipodous 11:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We can insert non-religious views?

Hang on, we can insert non-religious views into this article?

A number of commentators, however, have argued that Rowling's claim has no weight, as there is no indication anywhere in the novels that Dumbledore's homosexuality. "Ms. Rowling may think of Dumbledore as gay," said New York Times columnist Edward Rothstein, "but there is no reason why anyone else should." (ref Kimberly Maul (2007). Harry Potter Fans Continue to Debate Rowling's Outing of Dumbledore. The Book Standard. Retrieved on 2007-10-31.)

--Tony Sidaway 18:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we were trying to accomodate you a bit, as I felt that we needed some non-religious views to provide context. Wrad 18:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
That comment had nothing to do with whether or not outing Dumbledore was "good" or "bad", so I figured it it could be included. If a secularist liberal spoke out about religious bigotry and gay rights, then no I don't think that would be appropriate for inclusion, because then this would devolve into a debate about the morality of religion itself, which isn't the point. If a religious person were to say that accepting Dumbledore as gay is a Christian tenet, then yes, I would include it, because it would be a religious view. Serendipodous 18:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll take into consideration the possibility that adding relevant secular views on this matter may be useful in improving it. I'm not at all convinced that the Rothstein view is relevant in any way to the religious debate. --Tony Sidaway 18:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but what the hell do you want? I can't magic up some godly source by some omnicient being who has absolute knowledge of the global religious reaction to Dumbledore being gay. So far, these are the published religious reactions. I can't peek into the minds of every religious person on the planet and see if they agree with them. Serendipodous 18:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't ask you to do anything. To repeat, I'll take into consideration the possibility that adding relevant secular views on this matter may be useful in improving it. --Tony Sidaway 18:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yes! Thank you John Granger!

You wanted balance? Well here it is! I knew it was only a matter of time. Serendipodous 19:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice. Wrad 15:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)