![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
My boss just came back from a conference. She'd promised to look for good free stuff to bring back (last year's "Prayer of Jabez" pens being a big favorite).
Today she came in and said, "There just wasn't a lot of good free stuff. Only one thing, and it was for you." She hands me two books: HARRY POTTER AND THE BIBLE and FANTASY AND YOUR FAMILY (A closer look at HP and LOTR). The Harry Potter says above the title, "Harmless fantasy or dangerous fascination?" She says, "I'll bet I know which one it is!" and points to the second one. I am so amused that she brought these back for me. She apparently briefly complained that they were kind of heavy for her suitcase but the other person she was with said there was just no way she could leave without bringing these books to me.
I started flipping through them. A quick glance shows that Tolkien=good and JKR=bad. Yes, the Pagans are taking over, insidiously giving children magical practices that can be copied by children (um, they can?), and even worse, a world where there's moral ambiguity and a friend might turn out to be an enemy, an enemy an ally. (Apparently the author hasn't taken a good look at the current Slytherin house lately--there's orcs galore in there!)
( Then the author totally frightens me by writing a chapter where, while I still might disagree with the way he arrives at ideas and remain non-Christian, I wind up completely agreeing with him. )
Unfortunately the author naturally associates any ability to come to a sound moral conclusion with being Christian, all non-Christians being hopelessly motivated by self-interest. His blaming these problems on a lack of Christianity or a leaning towards Paganism, imo, completely misses the point. Followers are more important than any real thinking about morality. Just like the books he claims to dislike, for Richard Abanes it's all about which house you're sorted into.
He then amusingly finds ways to excuse Biblical characters in the same ways he objects to anyone in the books being excused. I think if he'd just think his ethics through instead of relying on a list of "never do this or that" he'd find a moral consistency that wouldn't even contradict his religion. But no, more important to just get those Pagans! ::sigh::
The only real surprise so far is that someone who seems to love Tolkien's ideas so much can not spell Gimli. Is it that hard a name, really? Hmmmm...
ETA: It's kind of annoying that I have like nothing to say regarding this guy's views on LOTR but since he's basically just saying, "Good. Tolkien Catholic. Good," there's just nothing to say, except that my reaction is much the same as it is to his other opinions: we sometimes arrive at the same conclusions for totally different reasons, but most of the time I think he wastes his time focusing on whether the book fits his personal agenda rather than taking it as a story unto itself.
Today she came in and said, "There just wasn't a lot of good free stuff. Only one thing, and it was for you." She hands me two books: HARRY POTTER AND THE BIBLE and FANTASY AND YOUR FAMILY (A closer look at HP and LOTR). The Harry Potter says above the title, "Harmless fantasy or dangerous fascination?" She says, "I'll bet I know which one it is!" and points to the second one. I am so amused that she brought these back for me. She apparently briefly complained that they were kind of heavy for her suitcase but the other person she was with said there was just no way she could leave without bringing these books to me.
I started flipping through them. A quick glance shows that Tolkien=good and JKR=bad. Yes, the Pagans are taking over, insidiously giving children magical practices that can be copied by children (um, they can?), and even worse, a world where there's moral ambiguity and a friend might turn out to be an enemy, an enemy an ally. (Apparently the author hasn't taken a good look at the current Slytherin house lately--there's orcs galore in there!)
( Then the author totally frightens me by writing a chapter where, while I still might disagree with the way he arrives at ideas and remain non-Christian, I wind up completely agreeing with him. )
Unfortunately the author naturally associates any ability to come to a sound moral conclusion with being Christian, all non-Christians being hopelessly motivated by self-interest. His blaming these problems on a lack of Christianity or a leaning towards Paganism, imo, completely misses the point. Followers are more important than any real thinking about morality. Just like the books he claims to dislike, for Richard Abanes it's all about which house you're sorted into.
He then amusingly finds ways to excuse Biblical characters in the same ways he objects to anyone in the books being excused. I think if he'd just think his ethics through instead of relying on a list of "never do this or that" he'd find a moral consistency that wouldn't even contradict his religion. But no, more important to just get those Pagans! ::sigh::
The only real surprise so far is that someone who seems to love Tolkien's ideas so much can not spell Gimli. Is it that hard a name, really? Hmmmm...
ETA: It's kind of annoying that I have like nothing to say regarding this guy's views on LOTR but since he's basically just saying, "Good. Tolkien Catholic. Good," there's just nothing to say, except that my reaction is much the same as it is to his other opinions: we sometimes arrive at the same conclusions for totally different reasons, but most of the time I think he wastes his time focusing on whether the book fits his personal agenda rather than taking it as a story unto itself.
