The release of "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" has rekindled the controversy between lovers of fantasy and religious fundamentalists, who argue that the Harry Potter series promotes witchcraft and Satanism.
These arguments are just as baseless and, frankly, ludicrous as they were in 1997 when the first book was released. To say that Harry Potter, a fictional series, encourages children to become witches and wizards is like saying that "Twilight" encourages young girls to seek out vampires and get bitten.
I have read many famous and not-so-famous fantasy novels, and to have such a public outcry against Harry Potter when the others get ignored, or, like C.S. Lewis' Narnia books, even lauded for religious symbolism, is purely illogical.
In fact, contrary to Harry Potter's unfounded reputation as anti-religious, it actually encourages many Christian values. The series is based on the concept of "good vs. evil," and operates under the assumption that good must always triumph. The theme of love permeates the series, as well, and in the end Harry wins because love is more powerful than anything else.
The final book, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," is the source of much of the evidence used for religious symbolism in the Harry Potter series: The Deathly Hallows as the Holy Trinity, the resurrection of Harry from death, and the biblical quote from Matthew 6:21 on Dumbledore's family tomb, "Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also," which refers to knowing which things in life are truly valuable.
These all point to the subtle Christian theme of the books, and to author J.K. Rowling's Christian background.
The newest argument against the Harry Potter books is Rowling's announcement in 2007 that she has always thought of Dumbledore as gay. Religious fundamentalists say that this is the nail in the coffin for whether or not the Harry Potter series is against the Christian religion, but I disagree.
For one thing, whether or not it's acceptable for Dumbledore to be gay, considering we live in the 21st century, there simply isn't any reference to it in the books, unless the reader stretches the language to its metaphorical maximum. Rowling said in a question and answer session: "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."
To me, this is as bad as saying, "Oh, and by the way, 20 years after the books are set Ron contracts a fatal disease, goes crazy and kills everyone." If it is not in the books then it did not happen.
The most important thing to look at is how impressionable young minds are. In my opinion, children are smart enough to separate what is fact and what is fiction, and for this reason, the Harry Potter books are just a fun, easy read.
Kalee Bumguardner is a junior agricultural communications
and journalism major, and
editor in chief.
Be the first to comment on this article!