Update (6/11): Laura Mallory (an ordained minister???) submitted an op-ed to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, dated June 10. For those who don't want to register to read it, here's an excerpt:
"The mass media today knows all too well that "sorcery sells," and the market is none other than … ? You guessed it — our children.
"Just take a look at the flood of occult books, movies, television shows, video games, and there's no denying it. Many children and teens today, fascinated with Harry Potter, are seeking Harry's power. What exactly is Harry's power? Where does it come from? Is it just "harmless fantasy" power or perhaps something more? Let's take a closer look at the effects of Harry Potter on this generation.
…
"But what about casting spells? Is it just fantasy? … The Association of Teachers & Lecturers, a teachers union in Great Britain, says, "This goes far beyond a case of reading a Harry Potter story. This represents an extremely worrying trend among young people."
"Please consider this small portion of transcript taken from an NPR (National Public Radio) report done on May 13, 2004. The profile was 'Teens and Wicca' on the radio show 'All Things Considered:' 'It's hard to know the exact numbers, but Wicca is believed to be one of the fastest-growing religions among high school and college students.'
"The Barna Research Group , a marketing research firm serving Christian ministries, polled 612 teenagers between the ages of 13-19. The results. 'Teenagers who have read Harry Potter books or have seen the Harry Potter movie were more likely to have experimented with psychic or occult activities than those teens who had not … the study revealed that 41 percent of teens have seen the Potter film or have read one or more of the Potter books. As a result of watching the movie or reading the books, 12 percent said they were more interested in witchcraft.'"
——————————————————————————
I wondered why I was getting so many hits today from searches on "Laura Mallory," the Christian who believes the Harry Potter books are dangerous for kids. There's new news coming out of Georgia.
Earlier today, Gwinnett County Superior Court Judge Ronnie Batchelor (Any relation to our Janet? - Doh! Different spelling…) upheld the Georgia Board of Education's decision to allow the Harry Potter books to remain on government school library shelves. (WTOPNews.com)
Mallory has stated, among other things, that the Harry Potter books promote evil and encourage children to practice witchcraft. Although she hasn't read the books, she believes she is enough of an "expert" on the books to speak authoritatively.
I first blogged about the case when it was before the Gwinnett County School Board. I offered my opinion of her case and why I believed she was wrongheaded here.
Late last year, I declared her crusade completely misguided in a looooonnnnggg post. Let's hope Judge Batchelor has the final word.
(Incidentally, Batchelor is the same judge who sentenced Jennifer Wilbanks, the idiot-woman who faked her kidnapping, to two years' probation a couple of years ago.)
Other Christian Harry Potter bloggers, including Travis Prinzi at Sword of Gryffindor, have written about Mallory. It's well-covered territory. But is it over?
Addendum: Here's a video about the hearing. Mallory sounded like she was crying.
Maintained by La Shawn Barber, this site is not affiliated with Time Warner Entertainment Company, LP, Warner Brothers, The Walt Disney Company, Walden Media, Scholastic, Inc., or Bloomsbury Books. Copyrights and trademarks for books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners. Their use is allowed under Fair Use.
Unless otherwise noted, site design modifications, original writing, and photography are copyrighted by LBC Media, All Rights Reserved.
Original WP theme Copyright Mike Little
May 30th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Sure, this whole idea is way off the beam, but it's J.K.Rowling who is responsible–and I think she did it deliberately.
Let's be honest. The word for a female worshipper of Satan–the ONLY word–is witch. The word for a male worshipper of Satan is warlock. There were other words that Rowling could have used to describe a female user of magic, but she did not. She also called Dumbledore the "head Warlock" of the Wizengamot. She has been quoted as expressing disdain for "organized religion", whatever that is.
I think Rowling is eating this stuff up. She's too smart, and too good a writer, not to know exactly what she was stirring up. I think it was her intention to create this kind of brouhaha. Maybe somebody should mention this to Laura Mallory.
May 31st, 2007 at 7:51 am
Who says that "witch" and "warlock" means satan worshipper? These words came to be way before Christianity came to England.
What about the Narnia books? Why dosn't anyone mention that Lewis had a roman god travel with Aslan, partying? And the fact that a roman goddess blessed the apple trees that the Pevensies planted? Lewis is to smart, and too good a writer, not to know exactly what he was stirring up.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:53 am
I just celebrated my 9th birthday as a Christian. I am a 41 year old mother of a 13 year old boy. Since I was 4 years old, I've been an avid reader. My favorite book is the Bible. My son and I have loved reading the Harry Potter series together.
I have read the New Testament from start to finish in a week's time and that laid a strong foundation for my faith and a great appreciation for and understanding of the Lord's Word. I am reading the Old Testament from Genesis to Malachi. When we pick and choose passages of the Bible to read out of context, we often misunderstand the message. The same is true if we rely simply upon our pastor's for spiritual instruction and don't supplement that with reading the scriptures ourselves to see that what we are being taught is true (that is biblical, see Acts 17:11). I have found this principal to be true for my faith, but also in my work and in just about anything I do. I have to read for myself before I come to a conclusion about a subject.
It is my understanding that Laura Malloy has relied upon the opinions of others and has only read snipets of the Harry Potter books before embarking on a crusade. Excellent title for this blog, "Laura Malloy and the Misguided Crusade". Very clever—I love it! At any rate, Ms. Malloy will not be taken seriously if she has never read the books. I've heard her argument and it is extremely weak based in large part on her lack of understanding about the books due to the fact that her own opininon is peiced together from a few paragraphs of the books that she's read herself and emails and statements from Harry Potter opponents.
For me and my child, Harry Potter provides excellent entertainment and fun. J.K. Rowling's books have a lot of wit, clever wordplay, sharp social commentary and great moral lessons on the virtues of good and the folly of evil.
The books were too scary for my child until he was about 10 years old. I know children who devoured them at 8 and others who didn't find them interesting until 12. Each parent must take the responsibility to determine if and when the Harry Potter series is appropriate for their children or for them. I also know people who love the series and they don't even have children. I monitor televesion, radio, magazines, school classes, school field trips, friends,etc. for my child and myself for spirtiual appropriateness. If I feel that anything could slightly compromise our faith, we don't do it. As Americans, our freedom is our strength. When we force our faith on others, we have to be prepared to introduce in to our laws the faith of other religions. As long as everyone is free to beleive or not beleive what they want or to read or watch what they want we will all be free. If you don't like Harry Potter simply don't read it. That decision is fine for you. Let each of us, as people, as Americans decide for ourselves. God is the one who gave us free will so it is not wrong for the US to give it to its citizens.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:58 am
I'm continually amazed that Rowling gets all the book banners while Philip Pullman, self-proclaimed "athiest's C.S. Lewis," has His Dark Materials on middle school reading lists and there's never a peep. I'm not advocating banning any book (although I do have some sympathy for the fact that sometimes "ban" is librarian-speak for "change the age recommendation"). I'm just saying, if my fellow Christians want to protest dangerous reading material, why not the series that directly attacks God as a wizened old man who begs to be put out of his misery? It must really frost Pullman, too.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Good point about Pullman. I've never read his work, but I've heard about it. So, His Dark Materials series is in government school libraries?
May 31st, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Kjetil–
Who says that "witch" and "warlock" mean Satan worshipper? The witches and warlocks themselves–Alistair Crowley, for one. It's not true that these words came into being before Christianity came to England; they are modern words. Modern English is a relatively new language, as languages go. In any case, one must go to the source.
I researched the subject extensively when I was in high school. (I know, I know. I'm not proud of it. It was before I made a real Christian commitment-but I also think we ought to know as much as we can about the opposition.). "Witch" and "warlock" are the words that Satan worshippers use to refer to themselves. That is simple fact.
What about the Narnia books? They do contain many Pagan references, and some committed Christians will not allow their children to read them for that reason. J.K.Rowling considers C.S.Lewis and influence on her work. So…
The tone of your comment gives me the impression that you may have missed my point. Do I really have to beat you over the head with it? *sigh* All right, then.
I think that Rowling deliberately used words with Satanic connotations simply for the purpose of stirring up publicity. It worked, too. I feel sorry for Laura Mallory; I think she fell for a trick. She may be misguided, but her only real crime is caring about children.
This is not to say that the Harry Potter books do not contain many Christian messages. They do. I have the impression that the Satanic references are conscious, and the Christian ones unconscious–that is, that Rowling was deliberately tweaking us with the former, but the latter are more in keeping with her true beliefs.
And if you have been around this site very long, you'll know that I am, in fact, an admirer of the series. But truth is truth.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:52 pm
I agree with Belinda. I have asked many of my Christian, homeschooling friends about their point of view on Harry…I get about 50% for/against. Then I ask what they think of Philip Pullman's books…I get a blank stare, Huh?, never heard of him.
I don't get it.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
It's funny. I'm sure within the Gwinnett school system they're are lots of books that don't espouse the perfect Christian point of view. She was doomed from the start.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:17 am
LMB, The Golden Compass is on the "Community of Readers" suggested reading list in Gwinnett County, so yes, it's in the library. My eldest is just entering middle school this fall so I haven't browsed the library yet, I don't know about the rest of the trilogy. Compass is not as blatantly offensive as The Amber Spyglass (the one where they kill God) but the villains are priests trying to steal children's souls.
So Ms. Mallory chose to protest over Rowling's books (main theme: You must decide between what is easy, and what is right) while ignoring Pullman's (main theme: Milton got it wrong, God is the liar and Satan should have won.)
Margaret, all those people giving you blank stares will get it soon - the Golden Compass movie comes out in December. The trailer has a tie in with Lord of the Rings and the special effects look fantastic. We're going to hear a lot more about it.
June 7th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of Pullman either. Certainly wouldn't recommend it to kids (though I am not a book banner!) I read the Dark Materials trilogy recently and wrote an extremely long review here. The money bit is toward the end, wherein I opine that Pullman's work can be interpreted very differently from how he intended. To me, it makes a lot more sense to read the Authority as Satan rather than as God - after all, the Authority has told the other angels (falsely) that he created them, and has established a church that does evil deeds in his name. Sounds like Satan to me.
I also wrote today in defense of CS Lewis in regards to Susan Pevensie's fate…that's one of the main problems Pullman seems to have with Lewis. Personally, I don't see how Susan being stony ground makes Lewis a misogynist.
June 7th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
by the way, didn't mean to drop links there, LaShawn. I did think of you when I finished the Susan essay and thought you might be interested. And then when I dropped by, the conversation turned out to be about Pullman, so…Sorry 'bout that. Anyway, I've been lurking both here and your main place for a while. Good stuff.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
It's sad, but this kind of thing happens often. Many Christians don't understand that we need to discern "scary" from "dangerous."
I've read a lot of fantasy stories, both secular and Christian, and every now and then I read a passage that bothers me. However, if I stop and think about it a bit I usually come to the conclusion that I am benefitting from those passages. For example, when the main character of a work of fiction expresses atheistic beliefs, my initial reaction of offense quickly changes to empathy and sorrow. My own faith is in no way reduced.
Also, I have yet to read a passage that is so offensive that I can't find an equivalent in the Bible. The Bible can be a scary book if you only take it in bits and pieces and at a surface level. There are many passages that I would not read to my young children. But we cannot afford to make shallow judgements.
I like the Harry Potter books. I like that they scare me a bit. They make me question whether my fears are rational, and usually they are not.
For every book, there is someone somewhere who would find it offensive. If we keep crusading against such books this whole problem will soon disappear because there will be nothing left to read.
June 8th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
I never meant to imply through my condemnation of Pullman's message in his trilogy that I am a book banner. I'm certainly not that. But I have watched in amazement as Mallory repeatedly and relentlessly pursues JKR while completely ignoring Pullman. It just adds to the ridiculous picture Mallory paints of herself, IMO.
June 9th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Oh, I wasn't saying you were a book banner. I just realized that I sounded like one when I said I not only disagree with the message but wouldn't recommend it to kids, so I wanted to clarify. I agree with you regarding the oddness of ignoring Pullman.
June 10th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
I was over at LaShawn's, where a couplecommenters are talking about how silly it is to go ballistic over Rowling and completely ignore Pullman. Assuming the book banner is a Christian, which Laura Mallory, discussed at the link, says she is, one would think that he or she would be more interested in getting the works of a militant atheist like Pullman off the shelves. I guess ignorance must be the reason why she hasn't gone after him. I would consider Pullman to be pretty famous, but I also think Hermann von Helmholtz is famous, so my judgment is obviously suspect.
June 11th, 2007 at 8:07 am
I'm laughing at us trying to clarify that we aren't book banners. I'll admit, I wouldn't rip an open Pullman book from a child's hands and scold them for reading satanic filth, as I saw a woman do with a Harry Potter book at a recent school book fair. But I'd mention to the child's mom that the author has publicly stated his intent to undermine the basis of Christian faith and she might want to read along and be ready to discuss.
OF course, after all the anti-Potter hype, any discussion of Pullman is fruitless. You won't get any farther than, "this book has anti-Christian themes" before you're labeled as another Laura Mallory, seeing demons (daemons?) where there are none. She couldn't have set the stage better if she'd planned it.
I'm not much on shielding kids wholesale from ideas that challenge their worldview or their faith - how else do they learn to defend themselves? But you have to know your children and gauge what they're ready to handle, and I do think that's the parent's decision. We have several friends who disapprove of Harry Potter. I tell my kids not to discuss it around their kids, and I won't let my daughter have a HP birthday party because a number of her friends wouldn't be allowed to attend. In return, they don't call our house the day a new book is released.
June 11th, 2007 at 8:52 am
I think that the Pullman argument has some validity. There is nothing wrong with making a valid statement of concern when someone willingly voices an anti-religious agenda. We have to protect our children.
I think the problem occurs when people look for simple answers to complicated questions. More people would have listened to Mallory if she read the books and then made some educated statements of concern, perhaps recommendations of what passages might be too intense for some readers. But to slap a generalized "bad" or "good" label on a book that has no hidden agenda is just careless and lazy.
We have to think and make hard decisions, and we have to teach our children the same. Moral rules are beneficial, but only when you have an understanding of their basis. Otherwise you just end up throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Great thread, everyone!
June 11th, 2007 at 9:09 am
I love that you guys injected some life into this thread. I started this blog to generate such discussions among Christians. Thanks for participating.
June 11th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Trish,
"I researched the subject extensively when I was in high school. (I know, I know. I'm not proud of it. It was before I made a real Christian commitment-but I also think we ought to know as much as we can about the opposition.). "Witch" and "warlock" are the words that Satan worshippers use to refer to themselves. That is simple fact."
Just because such people use these words about themselves doesn't mean that they are to be reduced to that. They do not own the terms, and the terms are much older. Many people say that they are tolerant, and say that we Christians are not. That is simple fact. But that doesn't make them right. It is a fact that many people use terms, and claim the right to use them, but that doesn't give the the right to.
Why does Lewis "walk free," and Rowling doesn't? Why is the use of the terms "warlock" and "witch" more controversial than Lewis's use of roman goddesses and gods?
June 12th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
I think the Harry Potter controversy and the Pullman controversy are two very different situations that demand different consideration.
Laura Mallory is stating that Harry Potter promotes witchcraft because it contains characters who can wield magical powers and are labeled as witches, wizards, warlocks, sorcerers, etc. However, Rowling has repeatedly said that she is not a witch and that she does not promote witchcraft and that we are underestimating children if we believe they will take the Harry Potter books too literally. (Of course there is always the rare crazy-child, but that goes for any and all book series. Harry just happens to be popular. Even if that kid who was arrested read Harry Potter, so does 90% of the rest of the world. It means so much less.) Rowling has also said she believes in God and, correct me if I'm wrong, that she is herself a Christian. And that's not to mention the Christian themes many of us have noticed thus far in the series.
Personally, I think the content of a book is just as important as the author's public statements when considering it's "goodness". However, considering Rowling's hint that an explanation of her faith would potentially ruin the ending of the series, the interaction with Rowling is different than with any other author and is very intertwined with the reading experience.
Pullman, on the other hand, has openly stated that he does not believe in God and that he is very much against the Narnia series. (Rowling, in contrast, loves the Narnia series. Not that she doesn't disagree with some aspects of it, like Susan's loss of spirituality due to boys and lipstick.)
Of course, the opinions of both authors of the Narnia series counts for very little, in my opinion. I know many people who don't like Narnia but enjoy similar Christian or other religious books and so on and so forth. I'm just mentioning it because it seems to always come up when people measure a Christian author's worth. (Just like all Christians must like ketchup in their eggs otherwise I won't read their books.)
And so, considering that Mallory would have so much more ammunition with the Pullman books, that's the only reason I'm surprised she hasn't gone after those instead. I'm not supporting book banning, really.
June 17th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Kjetil–
I never said those words should be "reduced to those terms". It is a fact that those words have those meanings, whether or not they have other meanings as well. I am convinced that Rowling was aware of that, and used those words deliberately to stir up controversy. Whether or not the words "witch" and "warlock" have other meanings (and in fact, "warlock" does not), one of the meanings , and one of the best known, is "Satan worshipper." The terms are not "much older" (than the worship of evil??????). They are relatively recent, certainly far more recent than the introduction of Christianity to the British Isles.
I don't know what you mean by saying that Satan worshippers don't have the right to use the terms by which they have always called themselves. Those are the accurate terms they use. Whether other people use the terms differently has nothing to do with the issue. The words are legitimately used in this context. If you would research the subject, you would find it to be so. It may make you angry, but it is the truth.
J.K. Rowling is fully aware of this. She wanted to create such a controversy for the books, I believe. She certainly succeeded in doing so.
What makes you think that Lewis "walks free, and Rowling does not"? That is not objectively the case. Christians who object to Rowling's work ALSO object to Lewis's work, and for much the same reasons, as you would know had you read my post.
You seem to be trying to say that I believe that the Harry Potter books are about Satan worshippers.. Nothing could be further from the truth, as you would know if you had followed my other comments on this board. But facts are facts, and the fact is that "witch" and "warlock" are words that refer to Satan worshippers. You can't change that by attacking either me or C.S.Lewis.
June 25th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Mallory could have taken the "Gabriel" approach and published spoilers so no one would want to read the books.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/23/books/23pott.html?ex=1340251200&en=2d8874ba4c248fa1&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss
“We did it by following the precious words of the great Pope Benedict XVI when he still was Cardinal Josepth Ratzinger,” Gabriel writes. “He explained why Harry Potter bring the youngs of our earth to Neo Paganism faith.”
July 6th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Belinda, Belinda, Belinda, shame on you.
The so-called "Gabriel approach" was a complete hoax, that misquotes and slanders the Pope. It's inexusable to recommend such behavior; Christians are supposed to be better than that.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Trish -
On the whole 'witch' and 'warlock' argument you're making - I hate to say it, but your high school research just isn't up to scratch.
The word witch comes from the Old English "wicce/wicca" and gradually evolved into the modern English 'witch.' In pre-Christian England (or between Christian England eras, we should say of the Anglo-Saxon period), it seems to have referred to men and women with some sort of power over the natural world, but it's sketchy. It certainly didn't refer to Satan worshippers, which would have been a trick since the Celtic and imported Anglo-Saxon religions (and later Norse) had no concept of Satan.
The modern term actually comes more directly from the Middle Ages. It was customay in towns in Britian for the townspeople to revere what they called a 'wise woman', an older lady who was something of a healer. Again, sources are kind of hard to figure since they tend to be terribly biased, but it seems they had retained some of the folk practices, largely concentrated on the use of native plants to cure illness, though it seems also mixed with either made up spells (not understanding Latin's meaning but understanding the power of the Mass, the peasant population had the tendency to make up Latin sounding words they believed would do things like find lost livestock or heal stomachaches), or appeals to the old gods.
These villages honored these women, who as you might guess, rankled the Catholic church at the time. They even gave them special hats to honor their service to the community. Guess what they looked like.
So… not so much to do with Satan so far. The association of witches with Satanic rites began to come about in the Renaissance (as bloody as we make them out to be, the medievals didn't burn a lot of witches - that was the enlightened Renaissance crowd) and gained steam from then. But even that association's not particularly consistent - the term more became one to refer to any unorthodox practice (such as women reading).
Considering the depth of knoweldge Rowling has already displayed concerning medieval history in her books, I think it may be safe to say she knows this, and maybe she's not just trying to stir up trouble, but rather using the term as it originally was used - people with extraordinary power later villified by the majority of the population. Isn't that what's been going on in the books anyway?
July 10th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
linds–
I'm sorry to disappoint you, my research is accurate.
First of all, "Wicca" is not an Old English word. It is an Anglo-Saxon word, which in Old English became two words, "wicce", which is the root of "witch", and "wikke", which is the root of "wicked." Both the words and the concept have always been connected. It has never been used to refer to healers or "wise women". There were healers in those days, of course, but they were not called "witches". The word has always meant a woman (usually, though sometimes a man) who gained supernatural powers by trafficking with evil. Healers and wise women were called just that–healers and wise women. I realize modern-day "Wiccans" want to hijack the word to mean what it does not, but I'm sorry to see you buying it.
So, sorry, no "good witch healers."
I'm interested in how you come up with the idea that Celtic and Anglo-Saxon religions "had no concept of Satan." ALL human religions have the concept of an evil being who is capable of granting power to his followers. And as for Norse–what do you call Loki?
It is unquestionable that those who worship Satan call themselves witches and warlocks. No matter how you try to put a good face on the matter, you can't change that. Even the modern-day "Wiccans" who try to turn the thing inside out brag that some of their spells use the fat of murdered babies. How do you define that, if not evil?
Considering the depth of knowledge Rowling shows, it's obvious that she is not "using the term as it was originally used"–as a description of a follower of evil–but as a term that will provoke others.
(Of course the brooms have something to do with it, too.)
So, my apologies, dear, but you are dead wrong.
July 10th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
lind–
I just realized than in attempting to expiate my embarrassment at having investigated Satanism when I was in high school, I may have inadvertently misled you. Are you under the impression that this is the ONLY or the LAST research I have done?
I have spent my entire adult life researching folklore, and since I'm 53 now, that is quite a long time. The picture of the nice, wise healer who was called a witch is an attractive one, but it has no basis in folklore or history. It's modern, and it's completely made up.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Just thought I'd stick in my non-Christian 2 cents.
The wicce/wicca thing comes from the revival of interest in witchcraft in the early 20th century. It stems from people trying to piece together the practices of cultures that didn't write much down.
There were healers in many Dark Age and Medieval towns, and they were valued(though not in the quasi-gynocratic way that some branches of Wicca would have you believe). Some of them were even thought to be users of magic.
The use of witch and warlock by "Satan worshippers" refers, in garbled form, to the Satanist practice of doing this. Most Wiccans would take great exception to the idea that they are Satanists–and with good reason.
Satanism, the type that uses 'witch' and 'warlock', came about in the sixties, the 'creation' of Anton LaVey. The belief system has little to do with gods or devils of any type–the name is used more in the sense of the meaning of satan–adversary.
But finally, regarding the happy truth that JK Rowling has inspired numerous people to look into the practice of magic. Yes, many will look at the religious systems associated with magic–and they'll be disappointed.
The various religions, Wicca, Druidry, Asatru, among others, have precious little magic that would catch the interest of someone looking for Harry Potter style stuff–and most of that consists of entreaties to their various gods for assistance–in other words, prayer.
There are a few 'magical systems' that, like those used in Harry Potter, are not associated with religion(and I will point out that only a fool would not recognise that the witches and wizards in HPs' world are, by and large, Christian) Those systems are hard to find and are not related in any way to any faith.
I hope for more people to look at the beliefs that their forebears had before Christianity swept over the land, to see the traditions and folkways that were pushed aside or altered to accomodate a faith that grew from a desert people who lived very different lives than they did.
But I do not see even that as a threat to Christianity.
July 17th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Well, Jack, that's partially right and partially wrong.
No one is calling Wiccans Satan worshippers. However, the use of the words "witch" and "warlock" to refer to Satan worshippers is a very old one, that far predates the 1960s. It is not something that was "created" by Anton LeVey.
Despite the propaganda, "Wicca" is not an ancient religion. It does not even come from the early 20th century. It is less than 30 years old, and was created by feminists in specific opposition to what they called the "paternalism" of Judaism and Christianity.
The Catholic Church never pushed aside or condemned local folkways. It embraced them. Thus fertility symbols became Easter Eggs, and mistletoe a symbol of Christmas. The loa of Haitian Vodun (voodoo) have each their corresponding saint. The Incas were called by one missionary "true Christians" because they believed in (but did not worship!) a creator god.
What you call a "happy truth" in fact gives Laura Mallory and her ilk some ammunition. Because the Wiccans and THEIR ilk are using it for ammunition, believe you me.
July 18th, 2007 at 9:06 am
Trish,
I think your blanket statement that old 'healer' women didn't exist is as broad and incorrect as Wiccans assertion that they were revered. These women clearly existed–they exist now. They're that old lady on the street who knows everyone and is full of the wisdom of her years. Revered? No. Loved, usually. Magic? Probably not. But an old family remedy can sure look like magic to someone who doesn't know what it is.
The people called 'satan worshippers' and 'devil worshippers' weren't. If they had any non-Christian religious affiliation at all they were attached to remnants of the faiths pushed out by Christianity. There are very few faiths that profess to worship 'devils'–largely because such a clear dichotomy arises almost exclusively in monotheistic faiths.
LaVey's Church of Satan is the first 'satanic' religion to actively use the appelations 'witch' and 'warlock' to refer to themselves.
I think we agree on the approximate age of Wicca–though I think my point, that they are trying to re-create the rituals of faiths that wrote little down is more valid that ascribing the whole movement to the quasi-feminist Dianic sects.
But I must seriously disagree with the idea that the Catholic church didn't condemn local folkways–particularly those associated with the older faiths. What we call Christmas today is, with the exception of the added creche and Nativity story, a pagan festival–one that the early Church could not stop people from celebrating. With Easter they weren't even able to change the name–but they did graft the story of the Resurrection to the already existing festival.
And the loa have their saints–but that is not at the urging of the Church.
It is ammunition for people like Mallory–because she is, in a way, right. The Harry Potter books do pique the curiousity of those who read them, and some do take a look into the real occult. But why is that bad?
Why is it wrong to know that Christmas is a pagan celebration that defies the cold and welcomes back the reborn sun? Why is it wrong to know how people prayed, worshipped and lived before Christianity spread from its' desert home?
What is it 'ammunition' against?
July 18th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
My dear Jack–
I said that the old healer women DID exist, but that they were not considered "witches", because they weren't.
The people called "Satan worshippers" and "devil worshippers" were, and freely admitted it. They called themselves "witch" and "warlock" centuries before LaVey happened along. Aleister Crowley was one of them, as I have mentioned. If LaVey founded a Church of Satan, he was not the first to do so. However, he may well have been the first to brag publicly about it; most covens met in secret.
The Catholic Church did not condemn local folkways, as your own argument shows. It absorbed and adapted them.
(That's a little bit different than your assertion that they "grafted" stories on to pagan ceremonies.)
The Church may not "urge" Haitians to associate loa with saints, but they do not condemn it, either.
Why is it bad if people look into the occult? Because some of them may end up truly believing that Christ's Mass is a pagan ceremony welcoming back the reborn sun, instead of what it truly is–a ceremony that uses the traditions of the reborn sun to teach about the coming of Jesus, God's own reborn son.