religion in Harry Potter?

[javasaurus]

Does Harry Potter go to church? They celebrate Halloween and Christmas (not Yule), Harry has a godfather, there is an afterlife, as demonstrated by the existence of Peeves and Nearly-Headless Nick and Moaning Murtle. It has been suggested online that Harry was raised Protestant, Ron is from a large Catholic family (stereotyping?), and that Hermione is Jewish (though she does send Harry a Christmas present). I don't remember if the graveyard scene in Goblet had a cross (movie or book). The Dursleys tell neighbors and relatives that Harry goes to a school called Saint Brutus'.

So I think church and God exist in the world of Harry Potter, but we are seeing the world through Harry's eyes, not an objective lens. If the Dursleys went to church it was to meet societal expectations, not to pray, and they would not have taken Harry, so there was really no religion in the Dursley house. And without a religious upbringing, Harry (and thus the audience) may be oblivious to the religious inclinations of those around him.

Comments

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

Religion in the UK is a very different beast from religion in America. Most families celebrate Christmas with no reference to Jesus at all, and many consider themselves Anglican without ever stepping into a church, merely because their parents were and they didn't see any reason to decide they were otherwise.

Really, it's sort of there, but because it has little bearing on politics or education, it's not really something that's talked about much. Even the most "militant" atheists out there in the UK like Dawkins or the late Douglas Adams found they were more apt to aim their arguments against religion to America and not to the UK, mostly because, as I said, it doesn't affect politics much at all.

Schools with "saint" in their name are all over the place, and very few of them are actively religious and those that are, being Anglican, don't "shove it". Like most Catholic schools in America, they're better at teaching science than many public schools.

Even in North Ireland, with the "protestant" v "catholic" history, its really *always* been a racial and political thing first with religion being an easy excuse, an easy identifier, when other aspects of life in Ireland started to merge, but never really at the heart of the conflict.

Ghosts are a different kind of afterlife from the *true* other place, as Nick clearly explains in explaining why Sirius isn't a ghost at the end of book 5.

Really, you've got to understand that the power the Religion has in America is an exception in the west, not the norm. Rawling treats religion in the UK exactly the same way everybody else there does: it's there, it's tradition, aspects of our culture constantly remind us of it, it made for some nice pieces of art, but otherwise, 'eh?

[wilhelmina-d.livejournal.com]

Fascinating.

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

I understand that, but still, in a country where about 10% of the people attend every week, and a few more at least once per month, you'd think Harry would encounter some (probably muggle-raised) students that would mention going to church. It's a curious omission in an otherwise reasonably detailed world, and I wonder if it was by intent (and if so, why?), or simply reflects Rowlings' own view of the world.

Your comments about the connection between religion and politics are interesting, and I'll be thinking about them a bit. My knee-jerk response is that you cannot disconnect the two, as each provides a code of conduct and thus must intermesh well to avoid hideous internal conflict within a society, but like I said, I need to think about it.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

As I said, it's only a curious omission to Americans. In Britain, it really isn't talked about at all. It's not just her, it's the entire British culture.

My knee-jerk response is that you cannot disconnect the two, as each provides a code of conduct and thus must intermesh well to avoid hideous internal conflict within a society

But they already did, 400 years ago. That's the point and a reason religion is on the decline in the UK. England embraced Enlightenment philosophy almost as strongly as the American founding fathers did, but it happened across the board: the Anglican religion changed with the times (as it always has) to the point where Anglicans generally agree that the government fits their moral values. You really have to understand Anglicanism and how its different from other sects. There really is not the driving need for them to impose their morality from a faith standpoint into the political system.

If anything, they (well, we, including the American Episcopal Church) feel that society can decide a basic set of norms and as long as they're not hurt by it, what happens happens. Individual Anglicans are only responsible for themselves - the idea that permitting someone else to "sin" is itself a sin is something we've rejected for over a century.

That is not the Catholic view, nor is it the (typical) evangelical view, but it is the main reason England hasn't needed a revolution in centuries. It also fits the English temperament very well.

You have to remember that until very recently, England and Britain didn't really have such divergent cultures trying to live in the same place the way America does. The religion isn't a driving force between cultural differences or a deep source of cultural identity the way it's become in rural and urban America.

America, btw, didn't used to be this way - it was only in how the rural states reacted to the rapid change of culture in the cities through the 60s and 70s, AND more specifically, how influential church leaders used (abused) the media to gain power and money, that created the mindset that's destroying us today. Britain simply doesn't have that mindset, and really they can't understand it.

"Jesus he knows me" by Genesis, a satirical look at our televangelism, really didn't catch on in the UK - they just didn't understand how we could permit such people to get away with it without being laughed out of the country.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

ok, 340 years ago, in the restoration. they did try and let religion dominate the political sphere and all it got them was corruption, abuse, economic recession, executions galore, and the exile of a large part of the population to the colonies.

yes, they did have anti-dissension laws in place that punished many non-anglicans even as late as the early 19th century, but that was actually a political thing in that loyalty to the crown required acknowledging the crown as head of the church, remnants of Henry VIII (even though it was already a political non-entity). it was simply an easy form of political control, and in the end it backfired because it was the dissenters who, in order to survive and thrive in spite of the reduced rights, created the industrial revolution that eventually overthrew the power of the House of Lords.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

btw, i haven't even begun to talk about the impact of the world wars on the faith of the UK.

but consider this for Rawling: no, she doesn't mention Christianity aside from Christmas (treated, as most Brits do, as a secular holiday and tradition rather than a Mass of faith).

But she also doesn't mention nor invent any "Wizard" religion either. there are legends, and certainly the Dark Lord would want people to effectively worship him in the new order, but beyond that?

http://www.vexen.co.uk/UK/religion.html#OrganizedReligion - this gives some statistics on those that consider themselves religious (confirming my report that many who call themselves that have never been in a church). as such, mentioning it would have been such an odd exception that some would have proposed she was proselytizing, which she certainly wouldn't have wanted to be seen as since it would have distracted from the message.

The Potter books are a "threat" to american evangeslists not because of the alledged truth behind the magic presented (since we all know its all fiction), but because the characters by being strictly secular yet still showing a strong moral base, it shows a believable world where religion is not necessary for a strong, internal, moral code. this is the ultimate statement of enlightenment thinking, and is the ultimate deterrent to those faiths maintaining their fearful followers.

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

some would have proposed she was proselytizing, which she certainly wouldn't have wanted to be seen as since it would have distracted from the message.

I don't think she has let what others would think heavily influence her writing (except that bit of changing language for us dumb Americans in especially book 1). Would having an openly religious character (Christian or otherwise) have distracted from the message? Hmmmm...which message? Certainly one of the recurring themes is that all teenagers are a bit awkward, unsure, trying to find their way to adulthood. We openly see the struggles of Harry, Ron, and Hermione. Neville is an extreme case, but even Malfoy is portrayed as more bluster than self-assuredness.

I don't mean to suggest that the book needs a religious character, but I do think it would have made for an interesting minor character, and could have led to interesting introspection for Harry. It is an interesting omission (even if logical, given the English background as you've described it), but not the only one. Another LJ blog (I forget which) noted that fiction was a missing component of the wizardly world of Hogwarts (though investigation in that direction recalled that Ron had a comic book). It is interesting that a world so rich in detail glosses over certain aspects of life altogether.

As for the reaction of religious zealots to the Harry Potter series, that's getting a little off topic, and gives me a headache, so I'm going to ignore that for now.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

how would she reconcile, or hint that her readers reconcile, the possible relationship between magic and the miracles of the Bible?

would walking on water be magic? wine from water? was Jesus a Wizard? How many other miracles would suddenly have explanations because of magic?

how much of the discussion of the characters and their lives, the very discussion that encourages book sales, be lost by the inevitable discussion of faith and how her version of it inevitably conflicts with most dogmas. miracles aren't meant to be explained or explainable.

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

She gives us a world where magic is real, yet Christianity exists (even if only seen at the fringes like "Christmas" and "St. Brutus") -- so this automatically creates questions such as you ask, even if J.K.R. doesn't explicity state them.

As for reconciling the relationship between magic and miracles, why would she need to? To do so would involve explaining how magic works, explaining how miracles work, and then explaining the difference. She cannot do any of these, so she doesn't try, and most people probably don't even notice (or is that your point?)

I'd say this regarding Jesus and wizards -- wizards can't raise the dead, and can't rise from the dead, so there's still a significant difference.