Articles Against Harry Potter:

Site One
Site Two
Site Three
Site Four
Site Five



... so much opposition, but clearly Harry Potter raises a child's love for reading:

Site One
Site Two



And The Half-Blood Prince sold 6.9 million copies in its first day.



Questions for Debate:

1.) Are groups proclaiming* the immorality of Harry Potter correct in saying that the books raise violent behavior?

2.) The series is growing progressively darker. Would you allow your children to continue reading? Even when faced with such dark material?

3.) Is Harry Potter an overall force for good among children (reading more, broader language skills, etc.) or does it glorify* perverse, morbid things (divination, the living dead, talking to snakes, etc.)?


Note: Not a religious-based debate, the majority of sites found opposing Harry Potter put a Christian spin on the debate. Please keep religious dogma and rhetoric private.



*Edited to fix proper wording due to Paladin Elspeth's word-usage policing.

1.) Are groups advocating the immorality of Harry Potter correct in saying that the books raise violent behavior?

I think you meant, are groups proclaiming the immorality of Harry Potter...

Harry Potter the character is not immoral in the least. His is a character thrust into circumstances well beyond his control, and yet he demonstrates honesty, bravery, loyalty and compassion in the face of sometimes overwhelming opposition and in spite of not being believed sometimes by even his friends or his teachers at Hogwarts. Yet he continues to believe in himself, and he remains steadfast. Yeah, that must be "of the devil".

2.) The series is growing progressively darker. Would you allow your children to continue reading? Even when faced with such dark material?

My 11-1/2 year-old daughter can certainly handle it, especially in light of the dark stuff she sees on t.v. (the news, CSI, etc.). Remember, too, that as Rowling's character gets older, so do the children listening to/reading the stories.

I certainly would not read Harry Potter and The Order of The Phoenix to a four-year-old. The materials are of necessity age-sensitive, and I would not read books on puberty to four-year-olds either.

3.) Is Harry Potter an overall force for good among children (reading more, broader language skills, etc.) or does it teach perverse, morbid things (divination, the living dead, talking to snakes, etc.)?

The Harry Potter series does not "teach" divination, the living dead, talking to snakes, etc. There are no instructions for actually levitating someone or flying on a broom. It is based on imagination, and I must say that it is far more wholesome entertainment than games where points are scored for stealing a car, running down pedestrians, and killing law enforcement officers.

Anyone who wants to learn about evil need only watch the international, national, and local news on television on any given night. You will see and hear about horrendous crimes perpetrated, sometimes in the name of religion, or just for sheer power over someone else, or because someone's gone terribly wrong.

I would say that invading a country that did not attack us is obscene, wicked, perverse and morbid. And yet our "born-again" President Dubya didn't let that stop him, did it?

This same President, during his run in 2000, was listening to a woman talk about her troubles, disability, underemployment, etc., back in the days when he was still interested in what ordinary citizens had to say and he was still accessible to them. His response? It wasn't dropping down on one knee and asking God to help her. No--he said, "I wish I could wave a magic wand..."* That was helpful. But by the word of other Christians themselves mentioned in these links, what he said was "of the Devil"!

I find far less in the contents of these books to lure children into a wicked life than I find on television, in their rap music videos, and in the practices of the corporations that would sell our own country down the river if it fattened up their bottom line.

*From the book, The Bush Dyslexicon

(Edit: I was recollecting some of the stories out of the Old Testament Bible that were pretty gruesome, and I know that I would not recommend them as bedtime reading to children! )

1.) Are groups proclaiming* the immorality of Harry Potter correct in saying that the books raise violent behavior?

Because of course, as we all know, violent people are persuaded to do acts of violence from reading books... hmm... I wonder what these groups think of the Bible... Not having yet devoted my time to reading any Harry Potter books I am ignorant as to whether or not the violence in these childrens stories is comparable to the second most published work of all time*


2.) The series is growing progressively darker. Would you allow your children to continue reading? Even when faced with such dark material?

Just how dark is it? As dark as a typical teenage dungeons and dragons game? as dark as the latest Spielberg film (rated PG13) where human beings are reduced to ashes by alien death rays or as dark as the TV news from Iraq?


3.) Is Harry Potter an overall force for good among children (reading more, broader language skills, etc.) or does it glorify perverse, morbid things (divination, the living dead, talking to snakes, etc.)?

Any book that gets kids reading whilst fueling the imagination is good in my opinion.

And whats so morbid about talking to snakes?


* Apparently the Ikea catalogue has passed the Bible as being the most published 'book' of all tme.

1.) Are groups proclaiming* the immorality of Harry Potter correct in saying that the books raise violent behavior?

2.) The series is growing progressively darker. Would you allow your children to continue reading? Even when faced with such dark material?

3.) Is Harry Potter an overall force for good among children (reading more, broader language skills, etc.) or does it glorify* perverse, morbid things (divination, the living dead, talking to snakes, etc.)?


Note: Not a religious-based debate, the majority of sites found opposing Harry Potter put a Christian spin on the debate. Please keep religious dogma and rhetoric private.

How can I put aside the religious aspects of those who are condemning the books when they talk about witchcraft and gobbledegook like that as if it is real--what is this the year 1530?
How can I take such people seriously?
All I can say politely is "Here's your sign" .

Violence in tv or movies or bugs bunney for that matter have nothing to do with violence in kids. How they are raised and the example set by their parents is where violent children come from. The rest is trying to lay the blame elswhere and failing to recognize their failure as parents. that goes for drugs sex and all the rest.

If my kids where old enough to read them I would have no problem with the darkening of the series as it is so obviously FICTION. Compared to the ready violence of the world aqround them it doesn't even compare to reality.

Harry is good for kids. Gets them reading and enjoying reading. That alone makes it worth the price. I don't think Harry is all that bad of a character rolemodel either--but again It is what I do as a parent that determines how my children turn out--no one and nothing else.

1.) Are groups proclaiming* the immorality of Harry Potter correct in saying that the books raise violent behavior?

I think the whole idea that the Harry Potter books will cause kids to become violent is absurd. The main criticism seems to be that the Potter books are contrary to bible teachings against the occult. I think that is just plain silly. Even if you accept the idea that violence in books or movies etc actually cause kids to be violent-- the Harry Potter books should be the least of anyone's concerns with all the violence we have already in movies, tv and video games. Just plain nuts.


2.) The series is growing progressively darker. Would you allow your children to continue reading? Even when faced with such dark material?

I think my 11 year old daughter would run away from home if I told her she couldn't read anymore Harry Potter. She had it on order for like a year and then read it in two days once she finally got it!

I must say that the series is getting progressively darker. Especially this last book where a characters dies. I think J.K. Rawlings will have a riot on her hands if the last book doesn't wrap up with "good" triumphing over "evil".

3.) Is Harry Potter an overall force for good among children (reading more, broader language skills, etc.) or does it glorify* perverse, morbid things (divination, the living dead, talking to snakes, etc.)?

Harry Potter is most definitely a force for good among children. I have never seen so many kids who can't wait to sit down and read a 700+ page book. And although the books have some "morbid" things in the story line, the overall message is very clearly that you should do the right thing.

Violence on television has this much to do with violence in kids: It tends to cause people to grow accustomed to watching or hearing about things that would normally shock and disturb them. Back when the wheel was being invented, I saw the movie In Cold Blood based on Truman Capote's book. I remember being quite shocked seeing in black and white the bloody, dead bodies in the film.

Nowadays the same sort of thing can be seen any night of the week on television.

That having been said, yes, it is incumbent upon the parents to raise good kids, and it is becoming more difficult to do so. Obviously, television isn't such a great babysitter, and the V-chip cannot stop all negative things from being seen by kids.

As far as the Harry Potter books go, I finished reading Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince a week ago. Yes, the series is getting darker, but anyone who knows the story understands why. Harry's ultimate conflict with Lord Voldemort is growing closer, and Voldemort's followers the Death Eaters are for exterminating all but the most pure-blooded wizards, because they believe that non-magical people are a sub-race worthy of nothing but contempt.

J.K. Rowling did not have to go far to find this kind of thinking in real-life history. Parallels can be drawn between this and Hitler's Aryan Super Race propaganda, where he and his followers blamed all of humanity's ills on the Jews and other so-called "mongrel" races. She does provide some insight into the reasons some people persecute other types of people; this in itself is valuable in educating children about real world bigotry and the violence it begets.

It may also be argued that J.K. Rowling's magical world is far from perfect, so it is not seen as pure escape fantasy. A child who, in the first few books, expresses the wish that Hogwarts and wizards were real finds out later on that there are bound to be problems even in that world, and desiring to be a magical person does not automatically mean that troubles all disappear. If Rowling had designs on stealing children's hearts away from the knowledge of God or from religions, would she not have attempted to make her magical fantasy more beguiling, more idyllic?

It seems to me that Albus Dumbledore never said to Harry, "The magical life doesn't give you anything you cannot handle," but many ministers like to say something very similar, substituting "God" for "the magical life", in order to get people to attend church.

I am a big fan of HP. Just finished book six. The outcry against occult influnces is largely overblown, but there are also a few legitimate thematic concerns unrelated to the occult which parents should be prepared to discuss in depth with young Potter enthusiasts...

1.) Are groups proclaiming* the immorality of Harry Potter correct in saying that the books raise violent behavior?
The books occasionally depict the protagonists causing serious bodily harm in response to purely verbal provocation, and often without being admonished by authority figures or even feeling the slightest bit guilty. Nothing a little parental guidance couldn't offset, though.

The protagonists in the latest books are depicted making obscene gestures as if it were absolutely the most appropriate thing to do. Again, nothing that a little parental guidance couldn't overcome.

The biggest thematic problem with the books is the frequent encouragement for children to defy adult authority figures. To be fair, I'm not certain the author intended that to be such a prominent theme. There are many authority figures in the books, and different adult characters are probably worthy of different levels of respect. But in exploring these relationships, more emphasis seems to be given to ineptness of adults than seems necessary.

If you are already having serious authority issues with your kids, the Potter books will probably fuel those issues. If your kids already respect your authority, the Potter books probably won't turn them rebellious.

2.) The series is growing progressively darker. Would you allow your children to continue reading? Even when faced with such dark material?

The series seems to assume that the readers are aging along with the characters, but should help parents by saying so on the covers. The first book seems targeted to 10-11 year-olds, and the sixth book to 16-17-year-olds. Although youngsters handle spooky ghost stories better than most adults assume they will, some of the psychological darkness in the later books seems excessively heavy for kids younger than Harry who have not already had a hard life. So, I wouldn't think it excessively strict for a parent to decide that their own kids should wait until they're at least as old as Harry in each book. Give 'em something to look forward to. They grow up fast enough as it is.

3.) Is Harry Potter an overall force for good among children (reading more, broader language skills, etc.) or does it glorify* perverse, morbid things (divination, the living dead, talking to snakes, etc.)?

I have some concerns, but on balance, the books do more good than harm.

I'm not so sure that coming up with humorous, snappy retorts qualifies as a "broader language skill." Rowling's writing style is clever and exceedingly entertaining to read. The only problem is she sets the entertainment bar so high as to make the style of other writers seem long-winded and boring by contrast. Traditional literature, especially that written before the television era, will hardly be able to compete. In the long haul, the Harry Potter books will probably have a relatively neutral effect on long-term reading habits and the educational quality of books one chooses to read.

I don't object to the magical aspects of the book. I don't object to "The Wizard of Oz" or Mother Goose or Grimm's Fairy Tales on the basis of depicting magic. Most great children's stories appeal to some kind of fantastic magic-- kids usually "get" the difference between make-believe and reality. However, the children's literature of yesteryear is careful to set a magical place either long ago, far away, or both-- so that any danger doesn't feel too "here and now" to young minds still learning how to cope with the real world around them.

The Harry Potter series has a more contemporary setting, although far away in merry-old-England, in a place we non-magical people can't go. As a result, the setting seems very distant in the first books, but then feels increasingly more contemporary as the books progress, to the point in the latest books where non-magical people are being tortured and killed in horrific fashion by evil wizards and witches-- something that most kid fantasy would avoid depicting. Parents should seriously consider whether their kids are mature enough to deal with such nightmarish topics at ages younger than the characters. For some, it could be too much too soon.

Ignoring the usual complaints about too much Wicca, I think the real moral considerations of the series run much deeper. Let me explain.

My main complaint about the first book was that it showed wizarding folk using the term "muggle" much the same way as the "N" word was used by whites in the South for many generations. In the second or third book, a new term, "mudblood," was coined to make a distinction between a term of endearment (muggle) and a racial/genetic epithet (mudblood). I think this works in the long run, but I do wonder whether it was intended from the beginning.

As I mentioned under question 1, the books show the protagonists misbehaving, and only occasionally getting in trouble for it in a way that the reader comes away feeling the protagonists learned a good lesson from their mistakes. The characters that the narrative tends to speak most warmly of are those who tend to misbehave worst in the name of good fun-- even when they get in trouble, the narrative tends to leave the impression that their punishment was completely unjustified.

A variety of authority figures are presented, but none of them is shown in full command of the faculties one would expect in a responsible human adult. The only one with more than half his wits is Albus Dumbledore, who expresses his wisdom by failing to explain himself fully, or by staying away from the protagonists inexplicably. While the adult Weasleys are shown to be emotionally capable parents, they don't appear often in most of the books, and even they have some obvious character flaws.

Overall, most adults are shown to be excessively strict and that, often as not, it is in a child's best interest to disobey adult authority figures in spite of the potential consequences. A hefty dose of parental guidance will be necessary for any parent who wishes to overcome such a notion taking root in their children's young minds.

Communicating that grown-ups are humans who make mistakes can be an important part of children's literature. Making such a point sink in to the young mind often requires character flaws to be magnified so that they are obvious enough that even kids can pick up on it. However, I think there is a legitimate complaint that Rowlings may have gone a little overboard in that department.

Rowlings v. Tolkien

As a result of box office battles (and unending plot similarities), it has become commonplace to compare Rowlings's Harry Potter series with Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Rowlings is easier to read, but it doesn't reach Tolkien's heights. Tolkien is very careful about spinning an ageless, universal morality tale-- while Rowlings tells a story about good and evil, but seems to establish rapport with young readers by skimping a little on how good vs. evil translates to everyday behavior.

Tolkien doesn't seem preachy, even though he clearly promotes traditional values. Rowlings tries to avoid being preachy by ineptly validating certain forms of mild misbehavior, disrespect and fisticuffs. Tolkien was very clear that "The Hobbit" was intended for children, and the "Lord of the Rings" for adults. Rowlings avoids making that judgement call, even though her books do grow increasingly darker as her characters age, with books 3-6 probably unsuitable for most kids under 13.

As a result of all these factors, Tolkien has written great literature in a responsible manner, while Rowlings writes near-great literature which sells well but may require more parental guidance than would have been necessary with minor modifications of the plot and more transparency on the intended age of the audience. Kids with responsible parents will probably not grow up to be axe murderers as a result of reading Harry Potter books. If you haven't let your kids read the books yet because you're worried about them, read the books yourself-- you'll probably enjoy them and wonder what all the opposition was about.

For the most part, the protagonists who end up causing bodily harm do so after enduring constant goading or underhanded dealings at the hands of their enemies.

I have noticed that the Dursleys and some teachers at Hogwarts have been unduly harsh with Harry, and he has had to put up with some rough punishments that would cause a considerable amount of resentment; case in point: Dolores Umbridge causing Harry to write lines "I will not lie" with a magical pen that scratches the back of his writing hand and uses his blood for ink (Book Five: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix). Harry has not told a lie, but the member of the Ministry of Magic disbelieves him. When this particular character gets her comeuppance, it is not by Harry's hand.

Harry rails at the unfairness of the Dursleys and the deliberate inattentiveness of Albus Dumbledore, also in Book Five. Magic and wizards aside, I think J.K. Rowling captures the feelings of an adolescent who cannot understand why he is being doubted or abused.

Now Fred and George, the Weasley twins, are famous for pranks and getting away with them. The pranks can be severe at times, I agree. But for the most part, Harry's friends do not resemble juvenile delinquents and have all too-human responses to the unfairness of life.

Again, though, from the magic standpoint: I have seen nothing that would tend to lure young people away from the religion of their parents. This is a vastly entertaining series of books, even if the writing does not approach the stature of that of J.R.R. Tolkien. And there would probably be less damage done to a child picking up a Harry Potter book than to another picking up Mom's swashbuckling romance full of "heaving bosoms" and "his manhood pressed up against her," ad nauseum.

Before I answer the questions I just want to quote this from the first link:



Since when has J.K. Rowling been possessed by Satan? (Hopefully this is an emoticon in php code: :thatsquiteatheory: )

Anyway...

1. No.

First, basically he is saying that although searching is in the Bible, it is also used by the devil so BEWARE! Mwahahaha!!! (Note: If you didn't understand, it is a really, really awkward double standard that Bradley has made up)

Second, he is taking Harry's title out of context. His title is from the sport "Quidditch" in the Harry Potter books. The offensive line in lacrosse is attack, but it isn't like the offensive players are beating people in the street.

Third, Bradley says that seeking is something that the devil does (even though people in the Bible do it, don't say that though shhhh), so automatically, if someone trys to learn something about Harry Potter, it will be EVIL! MWAHAHAHAHA! (Anyone ever heard of this book?)

Fourth, since the devil seeks things to eat, how can Bradley possibly draw any parallels?! Sure, if someone reads a satanic bible and then becomes a cannibal, I'd probably blame the satanic bible for indirectly giving the person ideas. But I haven't heard of kids who read Harry Potter and go out and eat people.

Fifth, all Bradley's analogies don't link to real life. He says the devil seeks. Harry's title is seeker. People will then seek out how to become witches at their local Borders book shop! Now THAT'S a slippery slope argument.

Sixth, regarding this:
I really don't know what kind of occult, goth Borders he lives around, but I don't even think there are hundreds of different Christianity books at a Barnes and Noble. (And Barnes and Noble DEFINETLY has a larger inventory than Borders) Although they do sell New Age stuff at Barnes and Noble and "reports" of witches, ghosts, and vampires books. Nevertheless, this guy is exaggerating.

Maybe one of the past six points answers that question.

2. I'm a kid myself, so I'm not being transformed into some depressed kid. Reading fiction is good, especially when the fiction isn't even possible. I was reading The Long Walk by Steven King where 99 teenagers out of 100 are shot just because they aren't walking fast enough. The context is a contest, and if a person slows down four times, the person is shot. Why aren't the Christians seeing any Satan in that?

3. The first. What happened to nurturing imagination? I haven't read the Bible, but I have heard that there is some gruesome stuff in it. Why can't these Christians see a parallel between witches and Jesus? How could Jesus feed, what, like 1000 people with three fish and two loaves of bread? I'd say that sounds like magic. I know that Christians are very devout, and I don't want to offend people here. I am just wondering how a miracle is different than magic.

A question for the antis: I know that they think witchcraft is bad, but why is it bad when it is used to stop a direct representation of the devil?

Wow--I didn't know that the Harry Potter series was placed so close to the metaphysical section (hint: it isn't).

And regarding "that person" has "given the demonic realm full legal right [emphasis mine] to come into him and his life"--signed in blood no doubt and in triplicate on the word-processed parchment. Well, we all thought we knew where lawyers go when they die, right? KIDDING!!!

Bradley has taken so much out of context, as mentioned by blingice.

Maybe I'm one of the "bad sorts" of Christians, because when my first husband attended Bob Jones University, we were not allowed to dance, play cards, or go to movies; and I, as a student's wife, was not allowed to wear slacks in public because it was considered to be a woman wearing man's clothing and therefore a sin. Well, guess what things I found myself wanting to do as a result of these restrictions? I found that these restrictions served to jeopardize my spirituality far more than doing them would have!

So, I'm not very sympathetic with Mr. Bradley's take on the Harry Potter series. I think it's not Hogwarts, but hogwash.

1.) Are groups proclaiming* the immorality of Harry Potter correct in saying that the books raise violent behavior?
That's hard to know scientifically without measuring a large sample of childrens' behavior before they read it and after they read it. My guess is that it doesn't.

However I do think that what people (and that includes children) read, watch, and learn can influence their behavior. I have a three year old nephew who has seen the movies and his behavior afterwards is to run around with a wand and talk about being Harry Potter for halloween. He also is quick to talk about the scary parts. As far as I can tell he is no more violent than he was before.

3.) Is Harry Potter an overall force for good among children (reading more, broader language skills, etc.) or does it glorify* perverse, morbid things (divination, the living dead, talking to snakes, etc.)?
When I was a kid I read books like Dungeons and Dragons which contained some dark and scary images based in a fantasy setting. I don't think that Harry Potter is any worse.

1.) Are groups proclaiming* the immorality of Harry Potter correct in saying that the books raise violent behavior?
I don't want to sit and deride people for being completely irrational fanatics , so I'll just say NO.

2.) The series is growing progressively darker. Would you allow your children to continue reading? Even when faced with such dark material?
This is actually a tough one. I bought the first three books for my 9 year old cousin. He is now completely Potterfied. He likes Star Wars now too. I'm afraid that I have doomed the poor boy to a dateless high school experience. If I can keep him away from Star Trek, there may still be hope!

His mother asked me about books 4 through 6 and if they would be appropriate. I made it clear that the books did start dealing with death and that perhaps she should wait on letting him continue. Not my kid, but if he was - I'd let him continue. It would be a shame to stymie such an excitement in reading fun innocent books.

3.) Is Harry Potter an overall force for good among children (reading more, broader language skills, etc.) or does it glorify* perverse, morbid things (divination, the living dead, talking to snakes, etc.)?
Good. But that brings up a good point that not all books are necessarily good. Would you let your kids read Mein Kampf? I would freak out if I found that in even my(hypothetically) 17 year old's room. It's all personal opinion, and I can see how some might find their child's reading books about wizards and Dark Lords a bit disturbing. If not disturbing, a waste of time maybe. I love the series, but it isn't exactly educational is it?