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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Bible quote in HP7 

message: Coherent and informative.  Keep it up.  Ichormosquito 05:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good job on the article, guys. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jesus Camp 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why the FAC failed 

message: 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.  Serendipodous 06:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit: Located online article, and placed it with secular discussion. Serendipodous 11:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I removed the Deathly Hallows addition 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Catholic section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Oops, I see that the quote is in the article twice. Wrad 02:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does mentioning the Biblical quotations qualify as OR? 

message: The article has outgrown its intro and it needs to be expanded. Thoughts? Serendipodous 16:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Thoughts on expanding the intro? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Spoilers?? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I don't know what else to do 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Link 56 

message: 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)
replies: text: Wow! Very nice find. Wrad 04:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Added :-) Serendipodous 09:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rowling talks about religion in the book 

message: 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 )
: 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 )
: 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." 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."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,"</nowiki>
: "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." )  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The changes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: From whom though? Serendipodous 17:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't matter much, religious or non-religious. Wrad 18:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: So what would you change, exactly? Wrad 17:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what would you change, exactly? Wrad 17:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, I see. You'd add a dispute tag. Not all that constructive, really. Serendipodous 18:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Which has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Serendipodous 11:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've reinstated it 

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

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  We can insert non-religious views? 

message: You wanted balance? Well here it is! I knew it was only a matter of time. Serendipodous 19:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice. Wrad 15:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes! Thank you John Granger! 

message: I found more info on Harry Potter from the November 2007 editorial of AmericanCatholic.org if you wish to add more about this: Harry Potter and the Communion of Saints.  So what do you think? --Angeldeb82 21:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Harry Potter at AmericanCatholic.org

message: No offense to the real Laura Mallory, but that's a guy speaking with a falsletto Serendipodous 11:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Podcast notes themselves on that page read: "A live interview with (someone claiming to be) Laura Mallory."  Even the people who compiled the podcast don't know who it was and they obviously haven't even made a minimal effort to contact Mallory and confirm her identity.  Add to that, it's a primary source, and this is obviously not even remotely reliable. --Tony Sidaway 11:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Having listened to that broadcast, I have to say that it sounds just like Frank Oz playing Miss Piggy, except that Frank Oz has better comic timing and the Muppets have much, much better scripts. --Tony Sidaway 11:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha. Wrad (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: OK. Is this real? 

message: This article had its name changed from Religious debates over the Harry Potter series back to Religious debates over Harry Potter. I have no opinion one way or the other about this, but thought it should be put to a vote. Serendipodous 01:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote on name change

message: I appreciate the effort, but is it meaningful to divide the responses into Shia and Sunni, when we can't even be sure of the denomination of some of the responses? There's a fair few Shi'a Muslims in Pakistan. Andjam (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Serendipodous 14:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shia and sunni 

message: Please see here and here before editing. This won't exactly assuage your concerns, but it will give you an idea of where the debate currently stands.Serendipodous 06:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: For those upset over POV

message: I feel these are extremely questionable; Lord of the Rings is notable for its portrayal of magic as a 'slow' thing acting over centuries, rather than simple spells to be memorised and repeated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.110.134 (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find that questionable. Gandalf's magic is pretty fiery and fast. So is the phial of Galadriel, which seems to light up with a simple word. So is the door to Moria with the password "mellon." I could go on... Wrad (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allusions to Tolkien 

message: Harry Poter books opposing Christianity? When did this happen? What's going on?-- 00:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just read the article. Wrad (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here's the deal. In the US and parts of the Middle East (and to lesser extent elsewhere) there are people who think magic is real. They think that human beings really do have the ability to work with Satan and demons to influence events and people in the real world. Therefore, reading fictional stories about magic puts children at risk of becoming devil worshippers. In other words, there is a disturbingly large number of people whose minds are basically in the Middle Ages. It's pretty sad.  thx1138 (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think the article should provide more context regarding this? Wrad (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think so. That would go way beyond its scope. thx1138 (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What?

message: that being drown to 'magical crafts' is in itself theological. This is not a forum but the front page of wikipedia reads like religions are attacking Harry Potter like that is not an attack to religions in itself. --Leladax (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Who's drowning and who's attacking? Wrad (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Harry Potter isn't a religion. It's not wicca, it doesn't resemble any form of actual religious practice. Therefore it has no reason to be protected from banning under freedom of religion. However, we DO have freedom of speech, which protects things like fictional books.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's why banning efforts have been so unsuccessful. Wrad (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The hypocrisy here is 

message: That at one point or another, all of us with conservative Christian parents know.. that they go through phases where ALL fantasy is banned. Harry Potter isn't usually challenged by itself, it's all forms of fantasy or imagination. Parents forget that fiction isn't real life, and worry that kids can't tell the difference, just like with violence and other issues.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's a common issue in America. We'd just need a reference to add that sort of thing. Wrad (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think it should be pointed out 

message: This section seems fairly heavily weighted towards one POV. Shouldn't there be a sentence or paragraph about the many positive reactions, perhaps from religious LGBT organisations? -Kez (talk) 02:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We really haven't been able to find any. If you can, please add. Wrad (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dumbledore section 

message: I'm not sure, but isn't this article about religious debates over the Harry Potter series? If so, then how is anything in the Jewish Response section relevant to the article? The controversy over the selling of the 7th book on the Sabbath in Israel doesn't have anything to do with the content of the book, and thus has no place in the article. If they had been selling a book about dancing monkeys on the Sabbath, the response would have been the same, i.e. it is completely independent from the fact that it involved a Harry Potter book. 69.70.149.107 (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. It is a bit heavily biased. Still I would like to find some Jewish criticisms of the novels. Serendipodous 03:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the fact that it was a Harry Potter book makes all the difference in the world. They are the only book worth protesting in this way because they are so popular. Also, the Jewish section covers more than just that protest. Jewish criticisms would be good, but if they aren't there, they aren't there. Wrad (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: About the Sabbath release controversy: The popularity of the books surely was a big reason why the controversy erupted (and indeed only something so popular would have even considered being sold on the Sabbath in the first place). However, the rest of this article deals with religious debates over the content of the books. This does not. If this was to be included, then perhaps a line saying how the controversy was not content related should be added. 69.70.149.107 (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If there are Jewish criticisms then they should be included, of course. I did a quick Google check: Here, This one has nothing, This one mentions a possible allegory between Voldemort being half-Muggle and the rumour that Hitler was part Jewish. I'm not sure if that last one is enough to warrant anything for this article, but it caught my interest. I also found a Jewish criticism of Christian criticisms of Harry Potter here, though I don't think that's relevant to this wiki article. If you can find anything better, go for it. 69.70.149.107 (talk) 03:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If there isn't a controversy in a particular community, there just isn't a controversy.  Maybe we could have an 'Other religions' section, with comment about Hindu, Buddhist opinions et., but maybe that's as far as we should go.  Google trawling should only be taken so far.--Pharos (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jewish response

message: Whoever keeps featuring all these idiotic articles really needs to step back and take a look at how this reflects on the Wikipedia community as a whole...for God's sake Wikipedia contains articles on a diverse range of topics and this is the best you people can do. It is absolutely pathetic that we cannot cover topics of greater interest or depth than this...Scott 110 (talk) 06:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might get better attention bringing that up on the Main Page's Talk page. Wrad (talk) 06:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It just seems weird that, sitting there on the front page, is a ridiculous claim that "the government won't let public schools ban harry potter because witchcraft is a protected religion under the constitution"... when wicca has nothing to do with harry potter whatsoever.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then fix it.  Tempshill (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not even what the Main Page says. It's your own summary with a heavy slant. Wrad (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Idiotic article to feature

message: I don't want to change it out of hand, because I don't have a ref right now, but the statement in Religious_debates_over_Harry_Potter#Definition_of_witchcraft.2FWicca saying that spirit guides are new age isn't a complete answer - they are also a strong part of First nations spirituality. Anchoress (talk) 08:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't really change that sentence since it is a direct quote. But if you can find something that would add meaning to the quote that would be good. Wrad (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spirit guides 'new age'? 

message: The images :Image:Nervous Witch 20.gif and :Image:Harrypottersatan.gif are not significant for this article and are merely used for decoration. Unless clear purpose of use descriptions (for the specific uses in this article) are added to their non-free use rationales, they should be removed per WP:NFCC policy (#1,) #3, #8, and #10. – Ilse@ 10:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Not significant for this article"!? You've got to be kidding. I'm shocked. "Merely used for decoration"!? As far as I've heard, they're nothing but informative. If they're for decoration only, they're pretty dang ugly. Wrad (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Wrad.  These images are entirely relevant to the article, and provide much more than mere decoration.  The article would lose a lot were these to be removed. Aleta (Sing) 17:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems as though this has been fixed. Wrad (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with images 

message: I find it interesting that nothing has been mentioned of the fact that Islam has had its share of magic in its history. After all, One Thousand and One Nights is chock full of such tales, and it has been very popular over the years. Indeed, it re-introduced magic as a plot tool in societies where Magic had basically been forgotten or fallen into disrepute. Harry Potter didn't start any of that. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Magic is present in many religions, whether they admit it or not.Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1001 nights actually is largely persian and sufi and not islamic. It was also much more popular in Europe than it ever was in Arabian nations. Wrad (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ONE THOUSAND AND ONE NIGHTS 

message: Sorry, I don't see that any of the references support this:
"In the United States, calls for the books to be banned from schools have led occasionally to widely publicised legal challenges, usually on the grounds that witchcraft is a government-recognised religion and that to allow the books to be held in public schools violates the separation of church and state."
It would be an enormous leap in logic for anyone to make this argument, it would have to come from a fringe right group and would be unlikely as such an argument would then preclude the Bible from public schools which not even the ACLU supports (provided it is use for academic reasons)...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.215.225 (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonetheless, that is the argument being made by people with religious objections to the Harry Potter series. Specifically, that is the charge made by Laura Mallory who has been trying since September 2005 to have the books removed from the Gwinnett County public school libraries. Nevermind that the exact same argument can (and has) been made against Bibles, which sets these same people off about how the government persecutes Christians. Please read the article; Mallory's claims are cited. You are right in that the initial claim needs to be cited. TechBear (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I have named some cites in the Mallory section and put them into the second paragraph. We might want to move some of the citations from latter in the article forward in a similar manner, to head off similar outrage from those who read only the introduction. TechBear (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to whoever seems to have done this. Wrad (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitutional issue needs citation 

message: At least that series has a serious theological debate aspect to it, rather than this Potter fancruft/controversy-exaggeration.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.161.249 (talk) 11:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe because this is an article about the Harry Potter series and His Dark Materials would be off-topic? TechBear (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to start a Religious debates over His Dark Materials article, you're welcome, though oddly I think you'll find there has been less of a debate over those books than there has over Harry Potter, despite Pullman's all-but jumping up and down waving his hand and screaming "Pick me! Pick me! I wanna be censored!" As far as I'm aware, His Dark Materials has never been taken to court, no copy of His Dark Materials has ever been thrown onto a bonfire, and those books never been suspected as the motive in an attempted terrorist attack. The same cannot be said of Harry Potter.Serendipodous 15:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HDM has certainly been banned and burned, but that is off-topic unless a quote is found comparing Pullman's work with Rowling's.Mdiamante (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no mention of [[Philip Pullman]]'s Dark Materials Trilogy? 

message: He's gay, but, as far as we know, has had no lovers since his teenage years, and maybe not even then. He doesn't seem to mention his homosexuality either. Isn't being celibate and closeted (if indeed he is; the books don't say this outright) exactly what religious fundamentalists want gay people to be, since marrying somebody of a different gender would be a false witness? There must be some commentary somewhere to this effect, unless those who think gays are an abomination are truly incapable of adding all this up. Mdiamante (talk) 03:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You make an interesting, if provocative, case, but this page isn't really for general discussion. Wikipedia isn't that kind of site. --Tony Sidaway 05:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You're assuming there is an internal consistency to what they get outraged about. thx1138 (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why don't fundamentalists admire Dumbledore? 

message: Perhaps you've discussed this before, but wouldn't it make more sense if the article was titled "Harry Potter (religious debates)" ? With a link from the Harry Potter DAB? Avruchtalk 23:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great article, by the way. Avruchtalk 23:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks :) As for the redirect, I think this article can stand on its own- it isn't really about Harry Potter per se, more a document of a peculiar moral panic. The template at the bottom of the page links to it, so there's no real need to disambig. Nice idea though. Serendipodous 00:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: Any thoughts on additional images? The article is looking a bit bare. Serendipodous 14:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have one of Dumbledore or Rowling? Wrad (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We have one of Rowling, but it's not easy to contextualise for this article since it shows her getting a degree from the University of Aberdeen. An image of Dumbledore is possible, but it would have to be argued on fair use grounds. A picture of Laura Mallory would be cool. Serendipodous 15:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Could somebody please copy the citations from the body of th e text into the introduction, too. As it is the introduction makes serveral claims which it does not back up, but which are covered by the main body. Both sections need these citations. - perfectblue (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Very tedious but done. I have to say I don't see the point of sourcing an introduction. If someone is only willing to read the first three paragraphs of a 5000-word article, he or she is not really in a position to complain that its authors weren't thorough enough. Serendipodous 12:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: I'm wondering whether or not the second paragraph inadvertently implies that all Christians object to gay people. I was trying to think of ways of rewording the first sentence ("Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin and who were critical of Harry Potter responded ..." is so clunky. "Homophobic Christians who were critical of Harry ..." is better, but a little strident and likely to cause controversy). 
It's a little tricky, but I don't think it's fair to assume that just because some people don't like Harry Potter, that they also hate gay people. Rangergordon (talk) 08:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, perhaps it can be reworded, but I think that Christians uncritical of gay people are also not likely to be critical of Harry Potter. I suppose "critical of both Harry Potter and homosexuality" would be better? Serendipodous 08:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Much less clumsy than my wording! Looks like you captured the golden snitch on that one, Serendipodous; good job. Rangergordon (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dumbledore's Sexuality" section 

message: :Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. (Exodus 22:18)
: 
: The desire to take this old testament passage seriously, and the imaginative use of occult or Satanic subtexts in J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter fantasy novels has given rise to numerous debates within the Christian community. Those which take things literally generally condemn the books; those which allow for imagination, generally regard them as moral fiction.
There are a number of issues with your addition. First, there are no third-party sources connecting the quotation to Harry Potter; the connection is yours alone. Second, not only Christians have criticised Harry Potter; Muslims have too, and that passage means nothing to them. Third, the line "the imaginative use of occult or Satanic subtexts in J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter fantasy novels has given rise to numerous debates within the Christian community" makes the implied judgment that the books are occult or Satanic, which is contradicted by later passages which argue that they are not. Serendipodous 21:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK; I've revised your comments and added a third party citation. It should be relatively neutral now. Serendipodous 21:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Religious debates over Harry Potter by J. K. Rowling stem largely from assertions that the Harry Potter novels contain occult or Satanic subtexts. 
this is good -- but a reader with no religious background isn't really given any sort of 'why' these occult / religious subtexts should even bother the religious folk. the fundamentalist point of view (be in christian/muslim/what-have-you) takes the point of view that one should not suffer witches to live seriously -- which is (to me, at least) irrational. but irrational or not -- it is the CAUSE out of which they act. that's why the passage (interpret it as you will) does have some significance. the fact that they take it literally is the root of their folly. 
the second point of view is generally those which have a bit more imagination -- they see the fantasy and wizards and magic as such. they are not such literallists as the fundamentalists generally are, and see the metaphor as a good moral tale. 
so i was trying to enlarge it from presenting only one point of view -- to include a bit more in-depth understanding of why these groups might be doing what they're doing. -- but i don't see what deleting such things out helps.  Johnrpenner (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Those which take things literally generally condemn the books; those which allow for imagination, generally regard them as moral fiction.
(deleted)
so thx a lot -- just try and improve an article, and get things deleted by the likes of you (three times -- at your discretion)
i must conclude that my efforts to improve this article are a waste of time. 
ciao. Johnrpenner (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suffering Passages to Snipped Out of Wikipedia 

message: I have some problems with this section. It's all very nice to be able to laugh and say "you're wrong on all these points", but in fact this section is misrepresenting Wicca just as much as the Harry-haters.
*The heading itself seems to imply that witchcraft and Wicca are synonymous. Wicca is merely one variety of modern witchcraft.
*Wiccans commune with the dead and the spirit world. At Halloween (or Samhain), for example, we invite the spirits of our ancestors and deceased loved ones to return and share our warmth and companionship for an evening. Extensive spirit contact by Wiccans (via ouija board and channeling) is recounted in A Voice in the Forest by Jimahl diFiosa, an Alexandrian High Priest.
*Sorcery: well, Wiccans definitely perform magic. The word 'sorcery' has a sinister sound to it, which perhaps doesn't fit with Wicca so well, but if it merely means 'performing magic', then certainly.
*Occult symbology: this is merely a catch-all phrase for anything that looks a bit 'occult', isn't it? Well, Wicca is very definitely 'occultism', since it deals with magic and the hidden parts of reality. And yes, Wiccans use occult symbols, such as zodiacal signs.
*Curses are of course forbidden in Wicca, as is all malicious or harmful magic.
*Demon posession: Whoever accused Wiccans of practicing demon posession is pulling a swift one. Wiccans practice what could loosely be called "posession": calling our God or Goddess into the body of a priest or priestess. I guess this is fairly similar to what Christians call "being filled with the spirit", but if you happen to consider the Wiccan gods to be demons (and of course they're demons, aren't they, since any deity other than Jehovah is a demon), then you could term this "demon possession", feeling only a tinge of guilt at your verbal chicanery.
The real reason why Harry Potter has nothing to do with Wicca is because Harry Potter is fantasy, presented in a manner that has virtually no resemblance to the reality of modern witchcraft, whether it be Wicca or any other variety. How many kids watch the Power Rangers and decide they want to enter law enforcement as a ranger when they grow up? The Texas Rangers, just like the Power Rangers, wear uniforms, fight bad guys, protect law and order, have headquarters and so on. The parallels are all there, but any rational person will immediately discern the vast differences.
I don't think we need to misrepresent our religion, simply because some people get the flutters whenever the words 'magic' or 'occult' are mentioned. Lets show a bit of backbone, rather than trying to turn our faith into what we think Christians want it to be! Fuzzypeg★ 23:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, Jack Chick's characterisation of Wicca is fantastic, as daft as ever. I keep reading those words: "We wanted his powers … so we called for spirit guides. Then they came into us" and it puts a huge grin on my face. It's absolutely sublime! Fuzzypeg★ 23:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have to go on what the sources say. If you can find sources that discuss what you say in relation to Harry Potter, then absolutely they can be included. But they'd have to specifically mention Harry Potter, otherwise it would violate WP:SYN.Serendipodous 05:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding communing with the dead, take either the diFiosa book I mentioned or the classic text on the Wiccan sabbats, Eight Sabbats for Witches by Janet and Stewart Farrar, under the Halloween section. Sorcery, take the founding book of the movement, Witchcraft Today by Gerald Gardner. Or look in a dictionary under witchcraft. Occult symbology: again, the Farrars' book has lots of symbols in it, or perhaps you could look in Ray Buckland's Complete Book of Witchcraft. He likes his weird symbols and magical alphabets. Spirit posession, again, look in the Farrars' book, or Gardner's book, or What witches do by Stewart Farrar. Maybe I'll even bother to find page numbers some time. I'm not trying to be unhelpful, I just don't have my books in front of me. Fuzzypeg★ 06:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be OK in an article on Wicca, but for this article any sources employed have to state what you claim in specific reference to Harry Potter. I can't say, "Those guys are wrong because Wicca doesn't involve X, Y or Z", because then I'm stating an opinion. All I can say is, "So-and-so says those guys are wrong because Wicca doesn't involve X, Y or Z." You see the difference? If you can find me some sources like that, then I can use them. Serendipodous 07:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of witchcraft/Wicca 

message: How is Harry's carving a cross into a tree not seen as a relevant point in whether or not he is Christian.  IT'S A CROSS!!! WHO ELSE USES A CROSS??? CHRISTIANS, THAT IS A VERY RELEVANT POINT!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.193.204.111 (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It may seem self-evident, but personal interpretations are to be avoided on Wikipedia. If someone else made that connection, and that someone else noted it in a reliable source, then that source could be included, but simply mentioning the connection isn't enough. Serendipodous 16:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

text: You don't show anything. Other people show it and write about it, and you report that they wrote about it. If no one wrote about it, then it doesn't go in. It doesn't matter if it's true. Wikipedia isn't about what's true; it's about what's verifiable. Serendipodous 18:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Because however obvious it may appear to be, unless you can see inside JK Rowling's head you are making an assumption about what she intended based on your own preconceived ideas about what the books are about. Find a reliable source that backs up your opinion, and it can go in. Otherwise it stays out. Serendipodous 18:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Who is Nancy Carpenter Brown? Is she qualified as a critic or has she ever written for anything other than her own personal amusement? There is nothing in that link to tell me that it isn't simply someone else expressing their own personal opinions. Please see: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Serendipodous 18:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

text: So I'm assuming that this link is to an extract of her book,  The Mystery of Harry Potter: A Catholic Family Guide? Was it published legally? (I mean the extract, not the book) Serendipodous 18:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I need to find the exact link on that site for the pdf. Then I'll find a way to work it into the article tomorrow. Serendipodous 19:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks. That's all I need. I need time to read the extract, so I won't be able to get to it till late tomorrow. Serendipodous 20:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity 

message: I wanted to run this by everyone before doing anything...
The "Christianity" section, where it quotes the two biblical passages, only includes quotes for the KJV rendering of the Bible. While we usually here those passages quoted as in the article; if it's supposed to be quoting the Bible, than other renderings (such as the "New International Version") should be included. Three reasons:
* It's impossible to truly quote the Bible in English, as they are all translation. Since all versions are criticized for various perceived inaccuracies, shouldn't multiple rendering be listed?
* The NIV is supposed to be the other top Bible, now topping the others in sales. NIV Circulation Data If only one other is added for balance and neutrality, it would seem to be NIV.
* Wikipedia's standard of neutrality (properly representing a document in this case) would seem to be applicable. So, shouldn't we at least list the two top versions of the passages in this Wikipedia article.
Therefore the section would appear as:
Christian opposition to witchcraft is usually credited to two biblical references:
Exodus 22:18:
* "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." (KJV)
* "Do not allow a sorceress to live." (NIV)
Deuteronomy 18:10–11:
* "There shall not be found among you anyone [...] that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer." (KJV)
* "Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. (NIV)
EDG161 (talk) 07:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The specific translation doesn't really matter. All that matters is the original Hebrew, which is quoted in the article. Serendipodous 00:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible quotes neutrality issue 

message: The 'dumbledore's sexuality' section is incredibly bias. it is obviously written by people who were disappointed by rowling's revelation about dumbledore. the many quotes from christian leaders criticizing the 'message it sends children' shouldn't be there. i'm going to delete some of them. if anyone disagrees, post here and perhaps a compromise can be worked out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.120.158 (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They absolutely should be there. This is an article about religious responses to the Harry Potter series, so they are valid. If you feel you need to balance it out, try finding more positive religious responses. They're hard to find, but people have found a few. Serendipodous 07:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  'dumbledore's sexuality' section 

message: Just stumbled across this  Wrad (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, you already have it. Wrad (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Iranian views