Contentious is not a very pretty word. And it is not a very flattering descriptive when used by the boy you are madly mad for and hope to marry some day. And for some of us, who are read up on our Proverbs, it brings to mind a drippy faucet and husbands sleeping out on the roof of the house to get away from you.
And yet, no one seems to disagree that I am kind of, sort of, well… contentious. Shhh, don’t say it so loudly. I don't want anyone in the blogosphere to know that... yet.
But this is how it happened. I felt, in an internet conversation, as though some hard-core Christians types weren’t being given the same liberties that other people groups, or groups of people with a shared paradigm would be given.
I thought, “Hey! If I said that about the Unitarian Church I would be pummeled over the head with a dead fish!”
I thought, these are reasonable, liberal minded, gracious and intelligent ladies. If I just quickly explain in no-uncertain-terms that they are really wrong to limit the freedom of thought/choice/speech to people based on their religion, they will totally get it and say “Oh Traci! We get it now! Thanks for that!”
But. Well. I guess people don’t like no-uncertain-terms and contentious-ish conversing. We do love each other, at that internet hangout where the misunderstanding occurred, so no harm done. But I would like to attempt to re-state my case; I’d like to see if I could make it make a little more sense.
Premise 1: Fundamentalist Christians are a people group.
Premise 2: People groups differ in paradigm, one from the other
Premise 3: Paradigms are made up of internal information, or "stuff"
Premise 4: Paradigms determine decision making
Premise 5: People groups have rights
Premise 6: Decision making is a right
Ergo
Fundamentalist Christians have the right to make their decisions based on the stuff that forms their paradigm, i.e. the Bible.
Specifically, those hard-core fundies who decide that they will avoid Harry Potter because of the witchcraft element have the right to do so. To require them to read the book before they decide if it is right or wrong for them to read it is to negate their right to their world view. The many folks who abstained from the books/movies/merchandising tie-ins did so because their conscience compelled them to. For them, the scriptures that speak about steering clear of witchcraft were more important than what the book may have been allegorical to. To them, God didn’t need an allegory that used forbidden subject matter to increase His Glory.
And how do I feel about it? I abstained from the books because I live in a world filled with real true wicca practice and have a handful of friends who take it seriously. I worked at a pregnancy counseling center, attended a public university and at those places met many other people involved in wicca. I didn't care if anyone else read Harry Potter, they are kids books for heavens sake. I saw it as a truly personal thing and not a groupthink thing. At that time, I didn't want to cloud my perception of wicca by getting all involved in an entertainment version of a real religion that is (excuse the political incorrectness) abhorrant to God.
Um. But Traci. I thought you said you love Harry Potter.
Well, then there is that. I, uh, well, you see I graduated and got a different job and the movies looked really cool (I dig fantasy in literature and film) and my dearest (the one who married me even though he pointed out my contentiousness) thought they looked cool. So we watched the movies and really, really, really liked them.
I still believe firmly that people have the right abstain from things their worldview deems forbidden without being considered ignorant. They aren't ignorant. They are differently informed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I agree that people have the right to abstain from things.
What people DON'T have the right to do is try and prevent others from access to the things they personally choose to abstain from.
I also strongly believe that having as strong a negative opinion as many Fundamentalist Christians do have about Harry Potter despite never having read the books is ignorant. How can you form an opinion of something without having all the information you need to make that opinion?
On the surface, without having read the books, you could say the Chronicles of Narnia were evil and ungodly because they have witches and fantastical elements to them - it is only upon reading them that the Christian allegorical messages emerge. It's the same with Harry Potter.
I think you're perfectly right, Traci - people should have the right to make their own decisions as to what they choose for themselves and for their families. BUT - attempting to impose those uninformed (and so ignorant) views on others is wrong, and it would still be wrong even if religion didn't come into it.
Does that make sense? I would understand if people still had a religious objection to Harry Potter after having read it, but I just don't get how people can form such strong opinions when they have NO idea of what the books actually contain.
It's that narrowmindedness that gives Fundamentalist Christians a bad name.
xx
Ahh, the point was missed again. But that's okay. Uninformed is not the same as ignorant. If nothing else, ignorant is inflamatory language which is a great way to deligitimize any argument.
I wouldn't ask a Jewish person to eat pork before he decides that God really wants him to avoid pork, would you?
Do you need to read Lolita before you decide that predatory sexual child abuse is wrong? I have read it. I know that it is an allegory for loving the youthful crassness that is America. And yet. The picture the author used to say that was a glorification of predatory sexual child abuse. And that is wrong and it is sick and I wish that the pictures from that book weren't in my head.
I know that Leonardo Davinci and Bon don't like it when people revert to authority to defend their argument. But the Bible says we need to avoid witchcraft. I make exceptions myself that I probably shouldn't. But I am proud of people who abstain from things that look like fun because they have strong convictions. And where I live (I don't know the rules in london-land) we have a protected right to campaign for anything we want. Even if it is controversial. So I don't mind when people make a vocal stand against pop culture. I don't think is is ignorant, or narrowminded. Fundies have a bad name because it is out of style to take the Bible literally.
Phew. How heated of me! Almost contentious, I would say.
Traci, you be as contentious as you like! I've been called that many a time!
Hmm...is being uninformed the same as being ignorant? I tend to think so. Roget's thesaurus lists uninformed as a synonym for ignorant, therefore I personally think they're the same thing. If you don't know something, you're ignorant of it. Maybe it has more of a negative connotation than I am intending it to?
Yeah, the Bible says we should avoid witchcraft. And for some Christians, that means not going near anything that contains references to that. That is absolutely fine.
But I think you're missing my point as well - I'm referring to the myriad of comments and articles written by Fundies who state facts about Harry Potter while having never read the books. That's an uninformed argument, and while you're very welcome to make your own decisions without all the information, you're not welcome to try and form other's opinions with misinformation, kwim?
I understand what you're saying, Traci, I really do, and I agree with you - Christians should be able to make their own decisions about what they choose for their lives based on what they believe to be Biblical truth. But I don't think it's right for them to push those views on others when they actually don't know much about Harry Potter other than it has witches and wizards in it.
And I do take the Bible literally myself - I don't believe in sex before marriage, for one thing, which is also deeply unfashionable. ;) However, I think avoiding witchcraft has nothing to do with reading Harry Potter - Harry Potter is harmless fun, and I tend to think those that think otherwise are a teensy bit over the top. But I still respect their opinion, obviously. :)
xx
I do know what you mean, I am very thankful that you wrote such thoughtful responses. Someday when we are the worlds formost famous bloggers (second only to Bon, of course) this dialogue will be a part our canon. Very important historically!
I am also proud of you for not pointing out that I have no business blogging when I am so seriously behind in my homework! I think now you know the real truth about why I won't make my millions as a novelist, eh?
Thanks for your contributions. I actually don't think you are one bit wrong in your opinion.
Post a Comment