Many sincere Christian organizations, like Focus on the Family, have been quick to condemn Potter, then proudly point readers to “The Chronicles of Narnia.” And that’s great, except that is all they can point to. Which leads me to the heart of the Christian media malaise in general: Where are the great Christian authors, filmmakers, screenwriters, producers, artists, and what is being done to train and nurture their craft? Until we put more effort here, Christians will remain on the sidelines, confined in their cozy churches, throwing an occasional grenade or two at the next Potter or Matrix, then return to their potlucks.
– Hilber
I totally agree, except that I would point out that a closer viewing of “The Matrix,” the first movie, is basically a violent technorwellian retelling of the Christian story with an emphasis on spiritual warfare. Since I’m an author, I am no doubt biased, but I find the fact that the Christian media would rather complain about secular novels than devote coverage to those books written by and for Christians is tremendously annoying. I can’t speak for other authors, but I can state for a fact that my publisher, a major New York house, sent out books to over 50 Christian media outlets and not a single one bothered to review it, despite the fact that Publisher’s Weekly did. But they’ve got plenty of time to complain about what non-Christians are writing for non-Christians. Go figure.
I think you are sickening, and it is sad they give you a voice. … Sin is fun? A redhead on the altar is something to joke about … wonder what the Lord will think of your comments and endorsement of Harry Potter books when you stand before Him?
– Kathy
Believe me, that column is pretty close to the bottom of the list of things for which I’m not looking forward to being held accountable. However, I stand by my assertion that sin is fun. If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t ask God to help us deal with the temptation.
Yes, there are far worse things to worry about than Harry Potter. … However, I subscribe to the broken window theory. … Warning people about Harry Potter may be considered a small thing, but it’s not unimportant. Informing people that this is not a positive influence on our kids is appropriate and not wolf-crying.
– Brian
We’ll just have to disagree. I have witnessed several of these Christian panics, from Dungeons and Dragons to Magic: The Gathering and now Harry Potter, and I do not see that the pagan revival, which is real, has much, if anything, to do with these products. I believe that the spiritual poverty of secular humanism, which is being taught in a much more specific and comprehensive manner to the children of America, is primarily to blame for this. I’ll listen to anti-Potter arguments from homeschooling parents, but anyone who thinks a single fiction series can have a more deleterious impact on children than 40 hours of secular humanist indoctrination a week for 12 years is truly living in their own fantasy world.
You are soooooooooo brilliant and fine looking, please marry me. I’ll convert.
– Beth
Thanks, Beth, but as I mentioned a few weeks ago, I’m off the market. But it’s great to feel as if you have a fan club, especially on a week with heavy hate mail.
No matter how innocent the Harry Potter stories seem, they only serve to inoculate younger children to believe that receiving a mark on your forehead makes you special like the good wizard, Harry, and that anyone who refuses to take such a mark is just like a muggle-a non-magical person. If you cannot understand why this is evil, then you are either an idiot or a liar.
– Matthew
This is ridiculous. The Mark will have far more to do with your credit card, your driver’s license and your health insurance than any special feeling of elitism, and furthermore, it will be required by law. There will be no need to convince people that it is worthwhile, as the vast majority will accept it as readily as they give their children Social Security numbers.
I heard recently on the “Rich Dad’s Cashflow Quadrant” that money has lost 90 percent of its value since 1950. I read a similar statistic in Thomas Sowell’s “Basic Economics” that 20 bucks could get you more in 1960 than a hundred bucks can today. But what I have yet to hear is a clear-cut explanation why?
– Matt
The answer is pretty simple. I’ve read that the average lifespan of a paper currency is only about 70 years, because the temptation to create more spending power by printing money is simply too tempting for politicians and central bankers. It all comes down to the basic law of supply and demand, when the supply for dollars increases faster than demand requires, then the price must fall.
Since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, so much money has been printed that 95 percent of the value of the dollar has been destroyed. In other words, a nickel then is worth a dollar now – and that’s according to the Consumer Price Index, which massively understates actual inflation, which is more accurately defined as the expansion of the money supply over the growth in gross domestic product.
