Why is Lord of the Rings good and Harry Potter bad to many fundamentalists

Just wondering what others thought about this.

I teach school and have noticed that fundamentalist children are allowed to see the Lord of the Rings movies and not allowed to see any of the Harry Potter movies.

Both deal with sorcery and magic, but perhaps Lord of the Rings is more black and white in its portrayal of good and evil and Harry Potter is a little more gray on the subject?

Is it because JRR Tolkien was a professed Christian and was good friends with C.S. Lewis, another prominent Christian writer?

I am trying to understand the rational reasons for their liking of one and their hatred of the other, when both seem theologically objectionable (to fundamentalists).

at the fundamentalists that won't go, or allow their children to go, to see a movie in a theater but will watch the same movie on tv.

Same syndrome, I think.

Finding Nemo. I've known many that just believe that going to movies is evil, sex standing up will lead to dancing and other assorted idiocies such as women not being allowed to wear slacks or to go swimming even when it's all female unless they wear full body covering.

But it is the ones who consider all movies in the theater as evil...no matter if they don't need censoring...but will watch them at home on tv or even rent the tape or dvd.

It just doesn't make any sense to me.

...at. It was directed towards an assistant manager, who is a Christian. Don't know what I would've said since I AM a Satanist. I probably would've said "I AM a Satanist, and I can assure you, LOTR is NOT Satanic!"

Heh, wonder what kind of reaction I would've gotten.

LOL!

By the way, as this retired social worker understands it, 'satanists' do not fit the stereotype in the movies.

Do they just belief in pleasure and partying? Or do they seek to harm people? It is my contention that when you have someone who enjoys killing, then you just have an antisocial personality, period. I'm sure you're not that way. Most everyone I met while I was on 'the Beat' treated me respectfully, actually. Maybe because I tried to treat them respectfully - even in the most terrible of situations.

..."Do unto others as they do unto you" NOT "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" So we give respect and/or love to everyone, but if they go out of their way to harm you, you have a right do harm to them, but that never comes down to killing.

And on the partying part, we believe in indulgence instead of abstinence. We don't believe in an afterlife, so mind as well make the most of life, while you're still here!

what that person would have said if they knew that tolkien was a devout catholic.

david

The LOTR story has been around for awhile (longer than many of these fundies have been alive), so maybe they realize that fighting it would be ridiculous. Harry Potter on the other hand is penned by an independent female writer.

Good point, though. Another piece of hipocracy from the Christian Right.

....because JRR Tolkien was a professed Christian and was good friends with C.S. Lewis, another prominent Christian writer

were they both member of the Inklings??

n/t

in Christianity. He wrote extensively about it and was even influenced by Tolkien to return to his religion after a period of doubt.

Please show me a link to something that says he was an atheist.

On edit: Just found this in a Tolkien biography:

"...and above all C. S. Lewis, who became one of Tolkien's closest friends, and for whose return to Christianity Tolkien was at least partly responsible."

He was an atheist for the majority of his life but became an Anglican later in life.

so, most of his adult life, he was a Christian (he died 34 years later, the same day as President Kennedy).

http://www.factmonster.com/spot/narnia-lewis.html
http://www.factmonster.com/spot/narnia-lewisxan.html

Lewis is quite famous for having been an atheist that came to the opposing conclusion and then went on a writing spree defending theism. His arguments are perhaps the most used arguments in the theist camp.

He was an atheist in his earlier years, but he was STRONGLY Christian throughout most of his life. Very Orthodox High Anglican Church.

Have you read his writings? Mere Christianity, Surprised by Joy, The Great Divorce, The Screwtape Letters, and many others all discuss his religious beliefs.

On Edit: Sorry... others beat me to it. :)

until his conversion...Lewis was pretty smart and used reason and scripture to come to an understanding that I must accept Jesus at face value or worse he is just a liar. I have read some of his stuff, pretty good. He was not a fundamentalist.

The single most promiment factor in the Harry Potter books is magic, and the protagonist embraces magic fully.

That is anethema to fundamentalists, who view magics as the work of the devil. (Despite how they revere the "miracles" of their beliefs chief figures.)

I'm not saying it makes sense to me. Just saying I think that is their rationale.

and use it extensively?

(I realize they are not the main character (Frodo) but Frodo is certainly aided a lot by their sorcery.)

But Harry Potter CAN'T be Harry Potter without magic. It's an essential focus of the book.

LOTR (I'm in english class analysis mode here) can almost be seen as anti-magic in comparison. The one ring, it's master, are practically evil magic soldified. And they are eventually destroyed by the humblest of Middle Earths races, mere Hobbits. The result is the end of the rhealm of Elven kind and the beginning of the Age of (relatively magicless) Man. Magic, so to speak, dies.

LOTR is an overt Christian metaphor. IMHO, you should be telling your kids to QUESTION everything they read, including things you may not personally approve of. The answer to offensive speach is always more speach. The more points of view you're exposed to the better. Fundamentalists, being the delusional half-wits that they are, are anti-intellectual.

Read the books and you'll actually see that for yourself. I hate it when people say that. It just drives me up a wall.

Naturally, it's a book and you can probably draw conclusions that it is the bible for Uruk-Hai. That said, many elements are common with Christianity (and, in fairness, many other religions too):

* It's good vs. evil.
* Good wins.
* The elves are angelic looking -- ethereal, etc.
* In a world of many creatures, it is still men that are taking over the world.
* Frodo is, if not Christ-like in his suffering, certainly a comparably good person who is sacrificing so that others may live.
* The great evil is much like satan.
* The novels, also allegories about industrialization, harken back to simpler times where things were more clear cut.
* The world is at a judgment day and everyone is made to choose which side they are on.
* Gandalf dies and comes back as a purely good character.

How is that for just off the top of my head?

Now, Narnia is entirely Christian.

good vs. evil- pretty universal and secular, not just xtian

good wins- see above

elves are angelic- that's just your biased perception; some people criticize the books/films for portraying elves as perfect Aryans: white, beautiful, advanced, etc. I don't necessarily agree, but the point is some see what they want to see.

men taking over the world-well that seems to be the human condition in post-industrial life, eh? not just xtian life...

Frodo is only Christ-like if you want to see him that way. I personally thought he was annoying and smugly righteous. If he is a "comparably good person" then that is not necessarily an xtian quality, is it?

great evil is like satan- or like any other malevolent demon figure in many religions

simpler times when things were more clear cut- this is actually Tolkien's reaction to industrialization and war

judgment day- actually, most of the "races" were absent from the war. It was primarily men and elves who came together against the evil forces. The dwarves didn't show up (or MOST of the elves either), the hobbits didn't show up (with 3 exceptions), the river people didn't show up, etc. etc. It was less about "judgment day" (did they all ascend to heaven??) than it was about humankind overcoming their flaws and weaknesses.

Gandalf was always good. He is considered a minor god all along. He resisted the ring in the very beginning. He came back as more powerful, or as Sarumon was supposed to be.

Tolkien NEVER intended these works to be taken as xtian allegory. Here is an excerpt from an interview:

"But that seems I suppose more like an allegory of the human race. I’ve always been impressed that we’re here surviving because of the indomitable courage of quite small people against impossible odds: jungles, volcanoes, wild beasts... they struggle on, almost blindly in a way" (Interview by Dennis Gerrolt; it was first broadcast in January 1971 on BBC Radio 4 program "Now Read On…"). That doesn’t sound like the gospel to me. When Gerrolt asked Tolkien, "Is the book to be considered as an allegory?" the author replied, "No. I dislike allegory whenever I smell it."

So the point is, if you're out to look for something, you're going to see it, whether it was intended that way or not.

they don't think

(and I'm surprised no one caught this...)
Lord of the Rings, as portrayed by Tolkien, is Ancient History... pre-Christianity. The evil in there (Sauron, Saruman) is equivelant to Satan and the fallen angels (Orcs), and the good (Elves) are equivelant to Angels (I mean, they're blond haired, immortal, thin, unearthly beautiful and pasty white... sounds like Fundie angels to me) allied with humans (Dwarves and Hobbits are just deformed humans)...

Meanwhile, Harry Potter is set in modern day, and the 'good' are witches and wizards, which to Fundies means allied with Satan... and the evil are 'normal people' (muggles), and we all know NORMAL people are good Christians... (yes, I know that the real evil is Voldemort and his allies, but that's just Beezlebub and Satan fighting, right?)

Lord of the Rings is a metaphor for the war between God and Satan, while Harry Potter is a pro-satan piece... of course the condemn it while supporting LotR.

LOTR is strict good vs. evil with good overcoming the evil, a message the fundies embrace.

I hate it when they throw that 'good v. evil' in my face. This retired social worker just does not see things as either purely good or purely evil.

I am cursed with being able to argue the good and bad of everything. But I can see that some others see things in black and white only, and it drives me nuts too.

I just hate it when people suggest it is.

whether it is one or not.

Your explanation is both humorous and helpful--thanks!!

I tend to see the elves as members of an "older culture" that respects the enviroment and talks to spirits. Tolkein did tend to speak of the rign as a "machine" that stole peoples will.

He did not want people to read metaphorically into his work but his lifes work DOES have an overall message. I think it is an attest to his ability to see past good and evil when he made pre-christian times, times often wrote off as evil, into an era of BOTH good and evil.

The Tolkien Universe is cast in absolutes. A thing is either clearly Good or Evil. Evil can corrupt and take over that which is Good but Evil does not come from our own descisions.

In Harry Potter there is evil but it is evil born of individuals descisions. And it is not always apparent. It is evil born of understanding the consequences. It is evil that we humans can determine for ourselves. Just as good is what we determine for ourselves.

This models the very issues that the religious right is up in arms about. Post Modernism and the Age of Reason seperated our definitions of morality from the concrete absolutes of the Church. It set us on a path of determining right and wrong for ourselves. It even altered some of the things we took to be evil and turn them to acceptable behaviour.

When you hear the right rail against secularism this is exactly the issue they are refering to. When we wonder why they cannot understand that some people have different values it is because they cannot accept that which they believe to be real Evil.

In a nut shell. Tolkien had Evil personified. Potter is learning to determine what is right and wrong for himself.

I haven't read the Potter books but what you say makes a lot of sense to me.

I knew of one child, a girl about 10 or 11 years old, one time told her mother that the only time she was happy was when she was reading the Harry Potter books. Something about that world that gave her what is missing in this world.

I think that you nailed it. And thanks for your postings about the new Seekers-UU-New-Thought Group. This is exactly the type of discussion that I thought would be fun to have on it (my favorite kind of topic). What you believe - what I believe - all nice and polite.

My church, the Church of Religious Science (new thought, progressive)(and my personal belief system as accordingly modified for individuality purposes) stresses individual responsibility and decision-making (that's probably why we are not popular with some). In other words, you use the force and accomplish your goals, or you ignore and wallow in helplessness.

Contrast that with my fundie relatives - you can sin, and sin, and sin, and all you have to do is 'get forgiven,' and it is all in God's hands, and you don't have to work at all (or maybe I get impatient with it - and could try to understand it better).

This places the question of knowing right and wrong far beyond the reach of humans. Thus we are made dependent on authoratative sources to be told what we have done wrong. Furthermore there is no way we can ever find a path to goodness on our own because we don't and can't know all that is wrong. Thus we are shackled to the dogma and the hope that we can be forgiven for what we have done.

Consider eternity in the heaven of a being who's mind and concept of good we can never know. If it does not coincide with our concept of good then how can it be heaven for us? Heaven at the foot of a being that defines a good we can never know sounds a bit iffy to me. Particularly a being that from all reports enjoys the ordor of a burning goat or two every once in a while (its in the bible).

The trouble with salvation from sins we cannot know is we are delivered into a heaven we cannot know.

I think you are absolutely right about Tolkien personifying evil and Harry Potter exisiting in a realm where he must decipher the answers himself.

Thanks for your insight!

The only logical explanation is tat the fundies think LOTR is part of their worldview, an allegory to Christ.
It isn't. Tolkein hated allegory, and although he was a conservative Catholic, showed a steak of progressiveness that people who haven't read the books wouldn't know about.
As for Harry Potter, they think its "PAGAN!!!!! OH MY GOD!!!!" It's basic over-reacting, though.
Or it could just be because LOTR are movies and HP are books that can be burned.

his distaste for allegory, especially when critics of his books compared the story to the two world wars. It made him really angry!

The saga is replete with themes and arcs part and parcel to the Christian mythos: Frodo is the unassuming pacifist who has his cross to bear; it is the quality of mercy, not strength or verility, that is idealized; evil is perceived to be the corruption of good, not as something entirely alien from the divine (witness the fall of the once-angelic Sauron).

It was once said that, in LOTR, you will see the face of Christ on every page. I agree.

I think that, as with all great works of literature, you can take or see what you expect or what you want to in it. I could probably write of a paper revealing the true Christian nature of LOTR just as easily as I could write one on the true environmentalist nature or the true monarchist or socialist nature of LOTR.

witch.

Harry Potter is a witch going to witch school. No witches in LOTR.

It doesn't matter what you do, else how could they support the Scumbag Cartel? It's what you call yourself. To the extent that they can tolerate fantasy stories, they can tolerate elves and dwarves and magic. But thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

The Witch-King of Angmar, an ancient enemy of the northern Númenorean kingdom of Arnor, whose life was unnaturally extended by one of the Nine Rings. He was promoted to Lord of the Nazgûl. The one who was slain by Éowyn on the Pelennor Fields.

There is scant mention in the Tale of Years about what sort of witchery he might have practiced; it says only that the Lossoth (Snowmen) who lived up north by the Ice-Bay of Forochel believed that he could make frost or thaw at his will. That in summer his power waned, but in winter his arm grew long and he made icy cold weather. This was their Arctic point of view, but who knows really if he was even a real witch or just had good PR.

I mean, HP reads alternative news magazines, trains an army in secret and goes after the heads of the wizarding world. Yeah, HP might be a bit dangerous.

Also, did anyone else notice the Chomsky books that were placed conspicuously near the front when the last HP book came out? Somebody looks like Dumbledore.

it is because J.R.R. Tolkien was a professed Christian, and J.K. Rowling must not be a Christian according to Christian media's propaganda (not sure exactly why; I guess because she doesn't have an agenda). She ONLY listens to Christian and/or right wing media, so whatever they say is the "Gospel" (no pun intended). She has asked me questions about Harry Potter before that indicate to me someone she listens to has been using parts of it out of context, or misconstruing its meanings (at least, in my opinion). I just tell her what they say is a bunch of crap, and she needs to read it and form her own opinions. I have no reason to believe she'll ever do that, though...

I was standing behind a woman at a bookstore. As we approached the cashier she noticed the Harry Potter videos in the impulse display. She proclaimed that Harry Potter was teaching children to be evil. I asked if she had ever read or seen any Harry Potter. She got all shocked and exclaimed "Of course not!" The sheep follow the shepards fear the independence of mind that Harry Potter teaches. The ability to discern right and wrong for ourselves is the single greatest threat faced by dogmatic authoratative religion.

Why do you think it is the first story told in the bible. Eve is shown to fail because she thought for herself. She dained to assert her definition of right and wrong over God's and was made to pay.

beats Harry Potter by a thousand miles. Anyway, I believe the difference is in the application of magic and witchcraft. In LOTR, the concept of witchcraft is not as essential to the moral universe, as in the Harry Potter books. There is a lot of critical evidence (and I've seen the movies and read the books enough times to notice) of a strong Christian framework in Tolkien. He was a staunch Catholic, much like C.S. Lewis. I've never read all the Potter books, but I've heard that the actual principles of real-live witchcraft are being woven in the books. It's just a story, as far as I'm concerned, but I think that fact that there are explicit examples of witchcraft in the Potter books, bothers a lot of conservative Christians.

...was quite sympathetic to Catholicism.

although the LOTR story is supposed to take place before recorded history Tolkien developed an entire mythology around it with a supreme being (Illuvatar), demigods (ainur), etc. However, one would have to read The Silmarillion or at least do some research in order to discover this. I'm fairly certain that any approving fundies are unaware of this.

It is the notion of absolute Good vs absolute Evil. The Ring represents an evil that mortal minds cannot comprehend. The only recourse in dealing with it is to not be tempted by it. This coincides with the dogmatic approach to morality. We cannot hope to understand Good and Evil. We can only follow the word of God and not be lead into temptation.

Meanwhile Potter is learning to discern good and evil for himself. Rawling's work supports a relativistic notion of morality. Evil results from the consequences of our actions. As does good. Thus we alone determine right and wrong.

I'm just saying that if they only knew the true scope of Tolkien's work they'd feel pretty embarrassed.

so therefore *obviously* fantasy..whereas HP is set in this world w/normal humans, so they have trouble separating it from fantasy..and think that somehow it is *real*.

one would be seen as acceptable and the other not. Doesn't make sense to me.

I'm a Christian and I really like the Harry Potter books (waiting patiently on the next due out this year) and movies..we have the LOTR movie, but haven't gotten to watch it yet.

I will let my kids watch and read them when they are old enough to understand they are just stories for entertainment and not real. To me it is all about entertainment, that was what the books were written to be.

J.R.R. Tolkien, was a Christian and I believe I read somewhere that his stories were analogous to the battle we face in this world, good against evil. Tolkien was a contemporary of C. S. Lewis, a former atheist, and I think Tolkien had a hand in bringing Lewis into the faith. I've seen all the movies and they are somewhat scary; I'm a little hesitant to let my younger kids see them.

Thanks in part to the movies. I think they were accepting it without actually reading it.

but you hit the nail on the head. A former welfare mother writing about witches and wizards and the idiocy of muggles v. a prominant professed christian professor writing a christian allegory.

For the needs and purposes of this post, I'm a "fundie." Whatever.

For the record, I enjoyed both books. Tolkien's better, in my opinion.

One, on magic: Tolkien deliberately keeps magic VERY dark and VERY much a last-resort type means for a character such as Gandalf to use. If you notice, THINGS are magical in that world, and few people - and Gandalf says few incantations or spells or anything.

In Potter, it's a way of life for the wizard and witch, but they really aren't real-world situations (other than the beginnings at the house of his Uncle), but removed to the school and other areas.

Anyway, I've read LotR AND ALL the Potter books, and agree with the notion that far too many of the fundamentalists have made poor judgements of the Potter books.

I think that I agree - to an extent - about the good and evil aspects pointed out here - absolute vs. relativistic - but there ARE shades of grey in Tolkien...Hobbits are actually the most pure of the creatures - men, dwarves, and elves each have their own particular faults (the Hobbit is the best example of this) - but I think that good and evil in both books is fairly well laid out as absolutes, and that the lines are fairly well delineated.

Anyway, yeah, it's the blatant use of "magic" and "witches" that the "fundies" don't like.