News-Record.com

"Did Pope Benedict XVI really express concern the Harry Potter books "erode Christianity in the soul" of young people...?"

It wouldn't surprise me. I think the Catholic paranoia about Potter originated from him in the first place. And to think... such a statement could only come from a person who hasn't dared to try reading it himself, lest he "erode the Christianity" in his own soul.

"A Maryland woman says she's only cashing in on reality -- many spouses cheat. Cathy Gallagher's Secret Lover Collection of greeting cards offers a Christmas card that reads, "As we each celebrate with our families, I will be thinking of you." "

[me shakes head]

Sad. Just... sad.

Anyway, welcome back! It's good to hear from you again.

Isn't the whole point of an affair that it be "secret"? Why would you send a card to your lover, something that could be found by a spouse or significant other?

Maybe they could be sent to a PO box that unsuspecting spouses never see? It all seems pretty daft to me. As always, I cringe at the thouhgt of what "popular culture" will come up with next...

Fr. Joe Mack of St. Joseph Catholic Church in Asheboro provides the following insight into the Pope question:
"Finding out whether or not anything official has been said is easy. All
official pronouncements, announcments, statements, etc are made available
via the Vatican's website (which is fully searchable). Check
out: http://www.vatican.va Click on the language of your choice, and go
from there.
(From having checked it out myself, you'll find one reference to a
review/comparision done in a vatican publication which dealt with Tolkien
and Rowling, and that's it. There was a broadcast on vatican radio
yesterday, a transcript of which you can find
here: http://catholicinsider.com/scripts/hp_transcript.php)

I think the Harry Potter books are wonderful fantasy for everyone. It is fiction based on ancient fairy tale characters, (trolls, giants, dragons and such), wih no reference or resemblance to the historical practice of witchcraft.
I have some friends concerned about the fact the fantasy is based on witchcraft, the practice of which is inherantly evil and purposely anti-Christian.

There is no reference to religion or politics in Harry's adventures, only good and evil. These stories are more in line with CS Lewis and JR Tolkein fantasies, though it is unfair to compare any author to them.

I am concerned that anyone consider the Muslim religion safe until the leaders and followers reveal what they really beleive. It is unfortunate, but their religion seems promote intolerance and terror to any peoples who are not Muslim.

For the past week I have been listening to the BBC (the BBC reporters refuse to lable the bombings as acts of terror or the bombers as terrorists) interview Muslims in England. While they (Muslims) claim their religion is one of peace, they are hard pressed to become pro-active in condemning the terror and to express the essential message of their religion.

The few Muslims I know seem to be kind folks. Are they like the Japanese, who privately disdain other cultures? What is the essential message of Islam? To kill all Jews? Destroy human rights? Belittle and abuse women? To destroy the West?

"I am concerned that anyone consider the Muslim religion safe until the leaders and followers reveal what they really beleive. It is unfortunate, but their religion seems promote intolerance and terror to any peoples who are not Muslim."

Yeah, Chip. And maybe we should wait to consider Christianity a "safe" religion until all Christians tell us what they "really believe" and until there are no Christians who commit any voilent acts or are intolerant of others who don't share their religion. That ought to keep you occupied for a good long while. Enjoy.

Wrong logic Eric. Christians are not routinely blowing up people in the name of Christ. They are not commiting terrorist attacks in the name of Christ.

Where, Eric, do you find Islam promoting peace and freedom for all religions? Be informative and specific.

Take note that the only nations that permit religious freedom are those where Christians make up the majority. Islamic nations do not allow other religions to openly practice their faith.

"Wrong logic Eric. Christians are not routinely blowing up people in the name of Christ. They are not commiting terrorist attacks in the name of Christ."

Forgive me for disagreeing, Chip, but I believe you said that all Muslims ("leaders and followers" were your words) need to verify that their religion is "safe."

Christians have in fact blown up people in the name of Christ, and they have killed people in the millions over the centuries, all for the greater glory of God.

How dare you point an accusatory finger at ANY religion and say yours is by definition better, when your own religion isn't 100% squeaky clean?

How dare I? No, Eric, this has not happened in the last 200 years.

On the contrary, my point is that in Islamic countries, no other religions are freely tolerated. It is a fact that the most free and advanced nations are populated by a Christian majority.

It is also a fact that nations of athiest have murdered more of their own people than all the major wars of the 20th century combined.

Eric Rudolph bombed abortion clinics and gay bars 200 years ago? Good Christian men in Mississippi lynched Emmit Till 200 years ago? Nazis, wearing uniforms that proclaimed "God is with us" gassed millions of "Christ-killer" Jews 200 years ago? What are you on, man?

The point, sir, is that what ever you may think of the superiority of your religion, it's not necessarily true. If you expect Muslims to live up to your moral standards before you will accept their claims of being peaceful, you should at the very least expect the same treatment of your own religion from non-Christians.

I suggest you get off your high morality horse and learn a little humility. You definitely need to get a new perspective.

Once again, Eric, you are wrong. People like Rudolph and before that- the Klan, were immediately condemned by virtually every Christian denomination and hunted down by good Christian men.

Where do I need humility and in what way am I on a moral high horse? I am not saying individual Christians are more righteous than Muslems, Hindus or even athiests. Of course, you know that.

I am saying I know the some of the central themes of the Hindu, Buhddist, Jewish, and Christian religions and that Islam appears to be different. BBut all the evils commited over the last 200 years in the name of religion pale in comparison to the enviromental and ethnic devestation athiest nations have managed in the past 90 years.

Nazis were never Christians. They may have used the name of God for propaganda, but they were more likely athiests.

This does not mean athiests are any less good or evil than a Christian, Jew or Hindu.

If you want to debate facts lay them out. I have asked you what Islam beleives and teaches. Is it contrary to what I am reading and hearing on the BBC?

Hey Chip. Are you really saying/believing Islam is the common denominator behind all the violence? I admit that it bothers a lot of people that, for example, a new husband/father would take on one of the missions voluntarily, but I have to believe there's something else. Was this man/his family possibly threatened?

"People like Rudolph and before that- the Klan, were immediately condemned by virtually every Christian denomination and hunted down by good Christian men."

What sort of warped history book are you reading? Rudolph was helped in his run from the law by people living in this very state. The murderers of Emmit Till walked free because their peers wouldn't convict them. They were not universally condemned by Christians -- unless you have some special definition of "Christian" that protects you from being wrong ever.

"Where do I need humility and in what way am I on a moral high horse? I am not saying individual Christians are more righteous than Muslems, Hindus or even athiests."

Well, let's see here. You started this off by saying that Islam isn't safe enough for your liking because not all Muslims have condemned terrorist attacks. You set the bar impossibly high for Islam, but you seem to think that your religion doesn't need to meet any sort of test for "safety." If that's not a high horse, I don't know what is.

You mention Muslim nations that don't tolerate Christianity, but you sure don't seem willing, as a Christian, to tolerate Islam. Setting a test for any religious group that your own can't meet is nothing short of hypocricy, if you ask me.

Yes, if you mean by all violence, the suicide bombings and acts of terror that are in the news today. The terrorists are commiting crimes against humanity in the name of Islam, while the supposed true Muslims remain quiet.

I know there is genocide against Muslim communities (by Communists), and that every religion is tainted with violent acts by its followers.

This morning several Muslim leaders were on the BBC and while they condemned bombing people they called civilians, they justified killing Jews and Westerners they characterize as "occupational terrorist regimes." They promote killing Western peace keepers because they claim the West and Israel is bent on destroying Islam.

I am asking- what do Muslims beleive? We have seen and heard from the Nation of Islam here in the US. There is no tolerence from them...Does anyone know what Islam relly teaches?

Okay Eric. What church, denomination or group supported Eric Rudolph's bombings? All the pro-life groups condemned them.

The sins of racism that many Christians embraced in the Jim Crow South have been rightfully condemned. Many white Christians still fall into racist behavior, but it is universally condemned by every denomination.

"I am asking- what do Muslims beleive? We have seen and heard from the Nation of Islam here in the US. There is no tolerence from them...Does anyone know what Islam relly teaches?"

If you're curious, you could read the Qur'an. I have, though I have to say I found it boring and repetitive. The whole thing that Muslims talk about, how it's so beautiful and such, must lose a lot in translation.

You should be aware, however, that "Nation of Islam" is a splinter group run by Louis Farrakhan (sp?) and is no more representitive of Islam in general than, say, the Dominionists are representitive of Christianity.

So far as foundational beliefs... I think most Muslims would agree that Islam is at its heart obedience in all things to the will of God.

The biggest problem with this is, as with all other religions, figuring out exactly what God's will might be.

I hope this helps.

Thank you. In the US, I love the fact we are ruled by law, not religion. Thankfully, most all religions (including Islam) teach that God is inherantly good.

Athiests beleive in nothing, do they not? Man cannot be good or evil. He defines himself.

The knee jerk raction by the liberal relious leaders above seems to ignore the fact that the Qu'ran teaches one to lie on behalf of other Muslems. That seems to defeat our rule of law...

"Athiests beleive in nothing, do they not?"

I think that nearly all atheists are skeptical of all supernatural claims... though I know of one person on-line who claims she's an atheist witch. I haven't been able to wrap my wits around that, but I say what the hey... our dogma is extremely limited in scope.

"Man cannot be good or evil. He defines himself."

When it comes to issues of morality and philosophy, there are many ways of approaching the subjects for us. I prefer humanism, the idea that the best outcome for humanity is the highest good. This is very similar to the views of theist humanists, who believe that God's main goal is the best outcome for humans.

Certainly, one needs to take into account human misconduct, define it in some terms. Secular humanists define "misconduct" in terms of damage or help to humanity.

"The knee jerk raction by the liberal relious leaders above seems to ignore the fact that the Qu'ran teaches one to lie on behalf of other Muslems. That seems to defeat our rule of law..."

It does seem to be the case, but I doubt that you'll find many Imams who will support the concept of lying during legal testimony. It would be interesting to know for certain.