Ruth Ann Dailey has completely lost her mind

Today’s attempt by Ruth Ann Dailey to ruin Harry Potter for everyone by pretending it is actually about her own favorite fictional character, Jesus Christ, contains this mind-boggling paragraph:

Not everyone in our social circle shares our enthusiasm. Some evangelical Christians reject J.K. Rowling’s books because they fear — pretty unreasonably, I think — that the books’ fictional world of witchcraft will desensitize impressionable young souls to the real, and destructive, thing.

That’s right: Ruth Ann Dailey thinks that witches are real. Not only that, but she is raising her children to believe the same thing.

If there has ever been a better argument for the confiscation at birth of the children of religious believers in general and evangelical Christians in particular, I haven’t seen it.

Another disturbing aspect to this: it is being discussed in Ruth Ann’s “social circle.” This means that there are other adults out there who are unembarrassed to sit around with their friends discussing the likelihood of a series of childrens’ novels tempting their progeny into deals with Satan, and no one among them with the brains to point out that witches, Satan and Jesus Christ ARE NOT REAL.

Seriously. It is the twenty-first century now.

7 Comments so far

  1. Tim Parenti (unregistered) on July 17th, 2007 @ 10:47 am

    I believe she said that “[evangelical Christians] fear… that [the books] desensitize impressionable young souls to the real, and destructive, thing.” That is THEIR fear. Dailey says she thinks such fear is unreasonable.

    She may still be crazy; or, she may not ever have been crazy. But please don’t take her words as making points that she clearly isn’t trying to make.


  2. Mac (unregistered) on July 17th, 2007 @ 11:56 am

    She says that their fear is unreasonable because she believes the books are Christian allegory, not because there is no such thing as witchcraft. Witchcraft, she clearly says, is a “real, and destructive, thing.”

    I appreciate your trying to make Ruth Ann seem more reasonable, but I think that you are torturing her words to do so. I stand by my reading of that paragraph.


  3. Bram R (unregistered) on July 17th, 2007 @ 11:57 am

    That’s pretty bold, Mac. Asserting that anyone with brains should know that Jesus Christ is not real. That would include every last presidential candidate running, including the one stopping by today.

    I got to admit, Tim, when I read that article I assumed RAD was maintaining that witchcraft was both real and destructive, and only drawing a distinction that the JK Rowling books do not encourage it. Perhaps she should clarify.


  4. Mac (unregistered) on July 17th, 2007 @ 2:38 pm

    I think that to put yourself through something like a presidential campaign you not only have to believe in Jesus Christ, you have to believe you are Jesus Christ.


  5. Tim Parenti (unregistered) on July 17th, 2007 @ 4:43 pm

    It’s very difficult to say things don’t exist without defining exactly what it is you are refuting.

    Is it not true that those who practice Wicca can be referred to as witches? They certainly exist; I know of a few myself. Isn’t “witchcraft,” by definition, what witches practice? Whether it does anything is questionable. Whether it’s dangerous depends on the individual case. But witches and witchcraft most definitely exist.

    Jesus? Historians agree that he existed. Whether or not he was anything divine is up for a debate that I’m not about to get into.

    Satan would fall into that same debatable category; I’ll give you that much.

    In a sort of joking manner, I do have to agree with your statement that politicians do have to have huge egos to run campaigns.

    I think that just about all writings on this topic can easily be misunderstood, but it might be nice to have some clarification before one goes around making such broad claims.


  6. Mac (unregistered) on July 17th, 2007 @ 5:01 pm

    I think it is likely that there was an historical Jesus. I spoke in the present, not distant past, tense.

    Wiccans may like to think of themselves as witches. I like to think of myself as a smooth ladies man, but that doesn’t make it true.


  7. Melissa (unregistered) on July 18th, 2007 @ 3:00 pm

    Mac, I think of you as a smooth ladies’ man, even if you sometimes fail at apostrophes.



Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.