The Harry Potter books are FANTASY. Magic in them has no religious significance, it plays the same role that made-up science and technology does in Science Fiction.
Thee were good and bad magicians in the Narnia books too. Is C.S. Lewis also supposed to be an evil influence?
The main valid criticism of Rowling's books is that they are potentially too scary for little kids. But "Lord of the Rings" is scary too.
The ignoramuses who claim the Potter books are Satanic tools are afraid that children will actually go out and do real magic after reading these books.
There is an enormous cognitive disjunction here. There are 3 kinds of magic:
1) Science disguised as magic ("Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"--Arthur C. Clarke). This exists and presents no spiritual problems.
2) Non-scientific magic which is morally and spiritually neutral because it depends on underlying "laws" and does not require the agency of supernatural beings. This DOES NOT exist, as far as we can tell -- people used to believe in it, but almost everything "magical" was eventually either shown to be false or shown to really be science (that is, the only "laws" involved were the ones that could be mathematized and analyzed using the scientific method). The Harry Potter books PRETEND it exists.
3) Magic through the activity of supernatural spirits who are not themselves God. If this is possible, AND if Christianity is true, then it is clear teaching that this is an immoral and spiritually dangerous practice. (If the supernatural spirit is in fact God, then it is not "magic", it is by definition a miracle, which may occur in response to a petitionary prayer but cannot be controlled or directed or forced by any human activity or formula).
The critics of Harry Potter are unable to understand the distinction between 2) and 3).
In the Potter books, "Dark wizards" exist, but they are simply evil people who use magic to evil ends. "Dark magic" is magic which is generally used for evil; the equivalent in our modern scientific world would be such researches as the development of deadly biological and chemical weapons, or the development of torture techniques, or the development of criminal skills such as forgery and swindling. Good wizards must learn the same principles and techniques when studying "Defense against the Dark Arts", but do so from a morally correct orientation.
Leading with false ad hominem arguments is always a highly recommended strategy for bringing your opponent around to your point of view.
The Harry Potter books are FANTASY. Magic in them has no religious significance, it plays the same role that made-up science and technology does in Science Fiction.
How do you correlate this unsubstantiated assertion against all the items detailed in post #8 ?
The ignoramuses who claim the Potter books are Satanic tools are afraid that children will actually go out and do real magic after reading these books.
Nothing like a few insults to spice up your argument. Meanwhile, the reality of evil is being denied at a time when it's influence is so very tangible all around us. Check out some information on Fr. Gabriel Amorth and his work as the chief exorcist of Rome before you call people "ignoramuses." You might also want to check out this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/835199/posts
In Potter, the ends justify the means. In Potter, there is good magic and bad magic, but the ultimate goal is POWER. In Narnia, it is the dabbling in magic that brings evil to Narnia, and it takes the Christ-figure Aslan to fix things ... not the characters practicing "white magic".
Harry Potter lies, cheats and steals, and is still a hero. In LOTR the supernatural powers used by men are corrupting and repeatedly shown to have a corrupting influence.
One librarian was quoted as saying since Harry Potter, more and more children are seeking books on witchcraft and the occult. They can't keep the books on the shelves because of the high demand. Children WILL go out and experiment when they see magic as portrayed as positive, and morality as subjective. That's why kids shouldn't even experiment with marijuana. While I personally don't think marijuana is all that addictive or dangerous when you try it once or twice, if you get in the habit of using it, you start experimenting with different drugs. Virtually everyone I know who tried marijuana continued dabbling in drugs until they were damaged by it, myself included.
I love fantasy and science fiction, and I am strong enough in my faith to be able to read something that may not be morally pure because I'm able to distinguish, as an adult, the subtle differences between right and wrong and moral ambiguities. Young children are not. The Harry Potter books are aimed at young children and it is THEIR souls that are at risk.
God bless.
Anyone even slightly familiar with the subject knows that Rowling has a sophisticated knowledge of the occult. Even the London Times noted it - "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire…is crammed to the bursting with vanishings, flights, zombies, replicants, identity switches, cryptozoological monsters," etc. To a restless, channel-surfing rhythm, Rowling switches tone, now teenage psychology, now Alastair Crowley-ish Satanism."
Rowling has stated that about one-third of what she had written is based on actual occultism.
A FANTASY… with no religious significance OR "based on actual occultism"?
Who should I believe, VeritatisSplendor or Rowling?
Who should I believe, VeritatisSplendor or Father Amorth?