Should Harry Potter be used in the classroom?

[Why?]

I think that they are wonderful books. I truly enjoy reading them. I know that they have brought many more children into the great passtime of reading than any other books. I definately think teachers should include these books into their lessons (or at least be on the list of choices when children are assigned book reports).

What other 800 page book are you going to get a kid to read as homework?

 

[The Seeker]

I don't see any reason that they should be banned from the classroom. They're some nice, mediocre fantasy books aimed at children, not the Satanic Bible.

On the other hand, I think that there are much better books out there that could be used for English teaching.

 

[bt_st_At]

I'm kinda/sorta not a Christian, but I can tell you that I don't think Harry Potter should be used in the classroom.

It's not a classic, it isn't really outstanding in any way other than being the most addictive children's book yet, and whether or not a lot of people care to admit it, there is a religious core. As we all know, Religion was banned from the classrooms, so all religions should be left for the hallways, lunchrooms, and homes.

Sorry this is off topic but really fast,
A book is a book the fact that a child is reading it should suprise you. Let them read a book that's the least you can do and if there is one thing that they will get from it is a higher vocabulary.


Okay I'm done sorry again

 

[Star_Pixels]

Sorry this is off topic but really fast,
A book is a book the fact that a child is reading it should suprise you. Let them read a book that's the least you can do and if there is one thing that they will get from it is a higher vocabulary.


Okay I'm done sorry again

But children are reading Lemony Snicket as well, and that's not controversial or religious. So why not let them read their Artemis Fowl, Lemony Snicket, and Tolkien? Why Harry Potter? Why is the one book that's controversial and offensive the only book they can think of?

 

[Rae]

Then why did she admit she did research?
--My goodness. You aren't being anything approaching objective here. You know that, right? She researched BRITISH FOLKLORE AND MYTH. Show me something ROWLING SAID which says she researched WICCA for her story, or give it up, please! Her own Web site says she researched BRITISH FOLKLORE AND MYTH, not a religion!

Why did she name a character in her book after the first man to set forth the Wicca belief?
--1. Who is this alleged character?

2. You honestly don't believe in coincidence, do you? Amazing.

Why did she named Harry Potter potter, since the mother Goddess created mankind from clay?
--::snort:: Like there aren't fifty billion other, non-Pagan reasons for her to do it ... like the CHRISTIAN image of God as a potter. Besides, which mother Goddess supposedly created humanity from clay? I've been involved with the Pagan community since 1992, and I've NEVER heard any Pagan say this before.

How did she know what wand size to use?
--Prove that the reason she knew it was because she was researching a Pagan religion, please.

How did she know all those little bitty things that many Christians overlook?
--Because most Christians don't know what British folklore is. Wasn't that obvious?

Remember the list Harry was given for his first year in Hogwarts? Everything on that is asked of new Wicca's
--Nonsense, and it's spelled Wiccans, not Wicca's. The books listed are fictional, new Wiccans are not asked to provide or make robes, and generally are encouraged to make (not buy) their own materials.

Mythology or not, there are too many small details in Harry Potter for her to not have done her research.
--You're coming off as someone who hasn't done the research here, actually, when you can't even get the name of Wicca practitioners right. Wiccan.

And, BTW, Rowling actually admitted to looking into Wicca on her radio show.
--Evidence, please, that she said it and the context she said it in. I'm betting it's along the lines of the article I read two years ago that said she didn't know Wicca existed until U.S. fundies started protesting her stuff.

Not only that, but Christian know there is a Witchcraft religion. "Suffer not a witch to live", remember?
--Oh, now this is just absurd. One Bible verse does not make a religion, and that one Bible verse didn't refer to anyone based on their religion...you should know better than to say this.

 

[Star_Pixels]

--My goodness. You aren't being anything approaching objective here.

Huh?

You know that, right? She researched BRITISH FOLKLORE AND MYTH. Show me something ROWLING SAID which says she researched WICCA for her story, or give it up, please! Her own Web site says she researched BRITISH FOLKLORE AND MYTH, not a religion!

On her own radio show and several interviews shown on BBC she admitted to having researched WITCHCRAFT and WICCA. Which is neither folklore or Myth, as you know.

--1. Who is this alleged character?

2. You honestly don't believe in coincidence, do you? Amazing.

Nicholas Flamel, and considering he lived almost 700 years ago, I think that's a wee bit too much of a coincidence.

--::snort:: Like there aren't fifty billion other, non-Pagan reasons for her to do it ... like the CHRISTIAN image of God as a potter.

So it was religious! *smiles*

But the Mother Goddess isn't exactly like the Christian God, and Harry Potter is, more or less, the Mother Goddess.

Besides, which mother Goddess supposedly created humanity from clay? I've been involved with the Pagan community since 1992, and I've NEVER heard any Pagan say this before.

Excuse moi? That's the first thing I heard.

Enki's mother created mankind out of clay, according to Tina, and in India the idea that the Mother Goddess created man out of clay is very common.

Also, many of the Wiccans on Fictionpress.com hold the same views about the MOther Goddess created mankind.

--Prove that the reason she knew it was because she was researching a Pagan religion, please.

Research mythology. I've actually done that, and no where does it mention how long to get a wand. In fact, very few mythology studies even MENTION the wand.

--Because most Christians don't know what British folklore is. Wasn't that obvious?

Um, excuse me, isn't the Pope British? There are a lot of Christians who research folklore. Some times to show how bad certain things, like Harry Potter, is and sometimes to see the originals of fairies, elves, and goblins to have things like Tolkien banned from the libraries.

--Nonsense, and it's spelled Wiccans, not Wicca's. The books listed are fictional, new Wiccans are not asked to provide or make robes, and generally are encouraged to make (not buy) their own materials.

Encouraged, yes, but there are a lot of shops that specialize in Wicca material.

And what books are you talking about? I'm talking about the objects!

--You're coming off as someone who hasn't done the research here, actually, when you can't even get the name of Wicca practitioners right. Wiccan.

Coming from a person who has never heard the Mother Goddess created mankind from clay, I wouldn't be spouting such words.

Ever hear of a typo?

--Evidence, please, that she said it and the context she said it in. I'm betting it's along the lines of the article I read two years ago that said she didn't know Wicca existed until U.S. fundies started protesting her stuff.

Oh, so let's see... her books are protested and banned, and so she says, "I was innocent to Wicca, oops, sorry".

Okay, now who hasn't done their research.

You can't research Mythology without pulling up Witchcraft and Wicca somewhere. So if she didn't know Wicca existed, she did some pretty crappy research. And if she did such crappy research, then how could she have hit so close to the mark?

--Oh, now this is just absurd. One Bible verse does not make a religion, and that one Bible verse didn't refer to anyone based on their religion...you should know better than to say this.

*shakes head*

Ask any Christian what the bible says about the Wiccan religion. Watch what they say. 4/5 of them say, "suffer not a witch to live".

Furthermore, the fact that it mentions Witch and Witchcraft multiple times shows that if Rowling was really Christian, she would have known that Witchcraft existed and wasn't just simple Folklore. So therefore her claims that she didn't know it existed would have been a lie, thus proving my point further.

 

[Ananel]

If it's taught in a special class, religion should be allowed. But they want to use Harry Potter in an English class, despite it's flaws in the grammar and the fact that it doesn't give justice to Mark Twain, who should be read in Rowling's place.

I don't think religion ought to be taught outside of a special class designed specifically for religions.

So are the greecian myths taught in a world literature (English) class. Sorry, that point stands.

Wizards, yes, but it has true occultic rituals (the brooms, the sacrifices, the mutilation; lord Voldemort is very specific), and it has very occultic mystical creatures, including the spirits that roam the hallways.

It also has proper wand measuring system as well as selective system, four houses = four elements, part of the Wicca rituals of magick and elementals. It has dark and white magick, and several small things, such as the Philosopher's Stone, are the core basis behind Wicca.

So even though Harry Potter is a fantasy-based wizard, Hermoine is very Wicca-like and several of the books points are very realistic in the realm of the magickal.

Rowling did her research, if she wasn't dabbling in it herself.

What research? There's nothing specific in the texts whatsoever in terms of actual processes of mystical research or methodology.

And, frankly, just mentioning the desired goal of the alchemist, the Philosopher's Stone, without actually mentioning any of the alchemical processes behind its supposed production really doesn't qualify as using researched matterials.

Four houses = four elements may actually be accurate, in that she used a Wiccan motif, but frankly I'm going to respond with "So what." The use of an elemental motif is insufficient for an untrained kid to ever catch onto the underlying structure it uses. Nowhere are the elemental motifs so core to wicca ever explained, so all it proves to be is mere imagery and far too vague at that. Without a true primer, no one untrained in wiccan imagery would catch the reference.

No, I'm sorry, it's not technical enough to count in my book. She may have used wiccan imagery, but she does not produce full wiccan technique.

Ah, but I've met many a great children who will read the false spells and go, "I wonder if that could work" and then do their research on real spells.

A stretch. It sounds logical, but frankly my motivation for research into the occult comes more from my Christian background than any cheesy things like Dungeons and Dragons or similar fare. I'd love to see some research to back up faux spells leading to real research, and further leading to access to real research instead of 'teen witch kits.'

I've been hexed three times by some elementary grade Harry Potter fanatic who got mad because I said the books were "a great starting point".

And, quite frankly, I sincerely doubt that they had a clue what they were doing.

And all things considering, do you know the stories of Veggietales?

Well, Veggietales is a children's franchise designed to lure children into Christianity. It has bouncy fun vegetables who play multiple roles in modernized or childrenized versions of the bible stories, such as Larry the Cucumber playing a silly, ditzy Joshua and a ping-pong playing, cheeze-curl loving Pirate who throws Jonah off the deck (and saves his rubber floatie).

These aren't the real bible stories. Most of them aren't even based off of bible stories, such as I Can Be Your Friend and The Rumor Weed. But they still have biblical principles, Christian morals, and teach, very blatantly, what a Christian is.

I hope you can see what I'm getting at.

Difference: Veggietales is explicitly so. HP is implicit if it is at all. The references aren't clear to the uninitiated, whereas in most cases the names, places and actions are similar if not identical to the biblical tales in VT. The relation is specious at best, as it draws a relation between imagery/metaphor and out and out adaptation of a story.

A difference between Harry Potter and LOTR, Lord of the Rings doesn't show people how spells could be cast. Gandalf lifts his wand, says some mumbo-jumbo, and fire comes out.

Harry Potter actually teaches how to work your wand, how to make potions (although a lot of that is just made-up plants/chemicals/stuff substituting the real stuff), which spells are black and which ones are good; what makes magick Dark or Light, how to do curses and hexes (with some mumbo jumbo, but Gandalf never cuts off a body part), and yadda yadda.

Plus that, and Gandalf's form of magic is more or less the very same Moses used, and the Lord of the Rings story is Harry Potter done Christian style, not Wicca.

The very fact that the entirety of technique is made-up and relies on ridiculously named terms doesn't exactly qualify as an explanation in my mind. Without a frame of reference to connect fiction with reality in technique, it's no worse than a cartoon with a witch on a broom singing "Double bubble, toil and trouble, fire burn and cauldron bubble." Sure, that might actually be drawn from something (besides Shakespear), but without a frame of reference, it's imagery and nothing more.

At least with Veggietales, the reference is clear and lacks imaginary elements in key points that allows the person to follow the lesson. The intent there is to teach that belief system, where HP is clearly intended to weave a story. It has little to no clear instruction in it. You have to create the instruction to glean anything direct from it, and even then it's heavily *******ized imagery.

And, honestly, let's NOT take the Christianity/LotR combo too far, ok? Yes, Tolkein drew some themes, but he explicitly disliked the usage of allegory that his friend Lewis made so much use of. Further, he pointedly did not view/intend the series as an allegory of Christianity, and I think people have to stretch it to make it one.

"...As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has been in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches: but its main theme was settled from the outset by the inevitable choice of the Ring as the link between it and The Hobbit. The crucial chapter, 'The Shadow of the Past', is one of the oldest parts of the tale. It was written long before the foreshadow of 1939 had yet become a threat of inevitable disaster, and from that point the story would have developed along essentially the same lines, if that disaster had been averted. Its sources are things long before in mind, or in some cases already written, and little or nothing in it was modified by the war that began in 1939 or its sequels." --J.R.R. Tolkein, 1966, Forward To The Second Edition of The Lord of the Rings

"...But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence." --J.R.R. Tolkein.

Yeah, some Christian themes or militarism might be drawn from it, but labelling it as you have goes far too far, and the author would have been one of the first to disagree, as he did, most vehemently.

 

[Ananel]

*shakes head*

Ask any Christian what the bible says about the Wiccan religion. Watch what they say. 4/5 of them say, "suffer not a witch to live".

Furthermore, the fact that it mentions Witch and Witchcraft multiple times shows that if Rowling was really Christian, she would have known that Witchcraft existed and wasn't just simple Folklore. So therefore her claims that she didn't know it existed would have been a lie, thus proving my point further.

And, not to be agonizingly picky, but "Suffer not a witch to live" is the term specifically given to the sorcerors of the Pharaoh's court. Yeah, you're still going to have to deal with the 1st commandment, but the fact remains that suffer not a witch to live had VERY specific connotations, and associating Wicca with the practices of egyptian sorcerers is tenuous at best.

 

[Ananel]

Remember the list Harry was given for his first year in Hogwarts? Everything on that is asked of new Wicca's, and, in fact, found on many Wicca alter's because they're part of the spell casting ceremonies.

those text titles, by those named authors? If not, your position is baseless, as the renames make the association nigh impossible by the untrained.

 

[Ananel]

http://www.geocities.com/nopotter2001/Potter0104.htm

Read, if you people feel like it. I make no attestations to its veracity, though the author actually calls on citable sources, which adds some strength to his claims (assuming his claims are accurate with regards to the cited sources.).

His overall assessment, as is mine, her stuff is by and large an overblown representation of the mythological archetypes of traditional 'witchcraft' that shows some marked similarities in imagery to more modern forms such as Wicca, but lacks specificity in procedure to the point where it is essentially ridiculous to claim she has placed detailed methodology. She made most of the stuff up, using common mythological archetypes observable in other fiction.

 

[kiwimac]

Reading Harry Potter will make a person a Witch in the same way that reading Pilgrim's Progress will make them a Christian.

Kiwimac

 

[feral]

I think it would be fine to use the Harry Potter series in a classroom. Children seem to relate well to the characters and to get really into the books, and in a time where a lot of kids have traded reading for television viewing, I think any book that encourages kids to develop a love of reading should be encouraged. The books would be useful for a young reader's class or a book report, as others have mentioned. I would agree that English Lit. ought to be more substantial, but the HP series would make a good individual project. Several other books were mentioned, like that Series of Unfortunate Events and others...I think any book that makes kids love to read is useful.

And now for some of this satanic business....

Why did she named Harry Potter potter,

J.K. Rowling, it has been said, used the name Potter after her close childhood friend Ian Potter, who served as some inspiration for the book, according to some different sources. But then again, where did she come up with the name Lily, as in Harry's mother??? Perhaps she IS a witch, because she is honouring nature by naming a "mother" creator character after a flower....and Harry has suffered greatly without connection to this "mother goddess" and she died to protect him in some perverse anti-Christian ritual...or maybe speculation on the subject will yield whatever results we hope to find

http://www.mugglepride.com/?id=rowling/bio

Nicholas Flamel, and considering he lived almost 700 years ago, I think that's a wee bit too much of a coincidence.

Nicholas Flamel was not anything to do with Wicca, he had to do with alchemy, according to all mentions. However, it is LEGEND that says he was able to create the Philosopher's Stone and never die...and if this is true, then where is he now? Using a historical name is not an indication of witchcraft. On a side note...are you reading Richard Abanes??

In fact, very few mythology studies even MENTION the wand.

There is no possibility that she could have just made up wizards carrying wands because...well...nearly all fiction portrays it that way? I am not Wiccan or Pagan, but I have never heard of a precise measuring system for wands - are the two related in some way? How did Tolkien know, then, to create Gandalf with a staff?

And I guess one more question from me...even if you were able to somehow prove that J.K. Rowling has a good grasp on Wiccan understanding, what would that mean in terms of whether books should or should not be allowed in school?

 

[Ave Maria]

It doesn't matter how reality based Harry Potter is or how much truth it has to it, it does have magic in it and therefore sparks a child's imagination about magic. This is not a good thing if you are a Christian who doesn't want their child dabbling in that stuff.

 

[Risen Tree]

Sure. Stretch their imaginations a little.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

As children's literature/to encourage reading, sure. Beyond that, it serves no valid purpose. It would be like trying to draw non-literary lessons from LORD OF THE RINGS or DUNE.

 

[Ananel]

It doesn't matter how reality based Harry Potter is or how much truth it has to it, it does have magic in it and therefore sparks a child's imagination about magic. This is not a good thing if you are a Christian who doesn't want their child dabbling in that stuff.

Then, may I humbly suggest you not show your children the bulk of disney films, warner brothers cartoons, the teenage mutant ninja turtles (Old version had Ninja magic throughout), any fantasy films in the modern era, most saturday morning cartoon shows, many comic book series and a large list of classic literature... Oh, and don't you DARE give them access to the internet.

Really, the list could go on. To shelter your children on the off chance that seeing something sling magic around might lead them to magical research is coddling them. It will leave them unprepared when they meet people who actually do this sort of thing in college or real life. Unprepared, they are INFINITELY more likely to enter into the practice unaware of potential dangers.

Innoculated by observing the 'magic' of daytime tv and grounded firmly in Scripture with loving and involved parents, they are a lot more likely to stay away from it, and to know why.

I can't countenance hiding your children's head in the sand simply because they might pick something up from a story years later. *shakes head* If you're going to be that paranoid about it, join the Amish and stay away from the mainstream society. That'll take them away from all this.

 

[savvy]

I agree. Trying to shield children from any and everything that *could* be harmful to them isn't helping them at all. Harry Potter is pretty harmless overall, I think. I have never met a child who joined Wicca or anything similar after reading the books. As long as they understand that HP is only a book, I don't see a problem with letting kids read them. They aren't the best written books, obviously, but they have very good themes and messages and, as it has been stated, encourage reading in children. I read many books in school which I think were poor examples of writing and far less interesting than Harry Potter, so I really don't see what all the fuss is about. I would have been thrilled if we had read them when I was in school.
btw, I have looked up just about everything J.K. Rowling has ever said about HP, and never ever has she claimed to base her series off Wicca. She has stated the opposite in many interviews.

 

[Star_Pixels]

So basically you've all just said that you think it's not really that important and that you believe everything Rowling says despite the obvious "coincidences" that too far too many to be coinky-dinks.

And why should I take you seriously?

http://www.paganpoet.com/cgi-bin/amazon-search/morelinks.cgi?category=11

^ Pagan books, Harry Potter listed

http://www.apologeticsresctr.org/harry_potter_and_the_bible.htm

^ A book dedicated to showing the Wicca behind Harry Potter

http://www.espministries.com/topic_harry.htm

^ "He is the product of J. K Rowling, a student of mythology who consulted with members of Wicca in order to accurately write about witchcraft in her book series on Harry Potter."

http://www.retakingamerica.com/harry_potter_01.html

So, um, let's see... *donces*

Not only that, but every Wicca/Witch I've met has actually given Harry Potter to their children as an extra-curricular study into the occult.


"There is no possibility that she could have just made up wizards carrying wands because...well...nearly all fiction portrays it that way? I am not Wiccan or Pagan, but I have never heard of a precise measuring system for wands - are the two related in some way? How did Tolkien know, then, to create Gandalf with a staff?"


Tolkien, for one, grossly oversized Gandalf's staff. THAT was a fantasy staff. And if you must know, a wand has to be the length of your forearm. You can check out http://wiccaforums.com/forums/index.php there for more information on wand sizing.

And sorry for going off topic. I'm just really opposed to teaching religion in school. No matter how vague it is.

 

[Blackmarch]

As Christians, do you feel Harry Potter should be used in the classroom and why or why not? Also, what part of the country or the world are you from? I am a Christian college student writing a paper on the use of Harry Potter in the classroom.

Thanks for your help.

For which class?
Fictional novels/literature, modern mythology, and etc.. ?
Yes.

 

[Ananel]

So basically you've all just said that you think it's not really that important and that you believe everything Rowling says despite the obvious "coincidences" that too far too many to be coinky-dinks.

And why should I take you seriously?

No, I didn't say think. I offered a categorical list of sources demonstrating the weakness of the wicca tie-in. Yes, she probably used it for her imagery to a limited extent, but the depiction is so catastrophically poor as to produce nothing in the way of education on the subject of wiccan practice.

If you're going to respond to me with "Why should I take you seriously" I would return fire with exactly the same words. The presence of nominally wiccan imagery in her works, so veiled that without training in wiccan practice and motifs the relations are impossible to notice, does not indicate anything dangerous. Your misrepresentations of Tolkein don't win you points in a serious student of literature's book.

Hell, the presence of an elemental motif is so rampant due to the presence of eastern thought and western alchemical thought in fantasy fiction as to be almost comical. I'm surprised when I don't see it.

http://www.paganpoet.com/cgi-bin/amazon-search/morelinks.cgi?category=11

^ Pagan books, Harry Potter listed

...and those who list that also list that two-bit hack job Charmed. You mean to tell me that you take the Buffy of the wizardry world as a serious grimoire? Have you even heard of the Arthurian Grimoire, Star? Do you even know some of the possible fates of the grimoires of the middle ages, or own a copy of the Malleus Malificarum or similar texts on the subject?

These people are idiots. They're still idiots. The associations are tenuous at best between wicca and HP. Yeah, she used some of the imagery, but would you have ever noticed it without research into Wiccan imagery?

Would your kids?

http://www.apologeticsresctr.org/harry_potter_and_the_bible.htm

^ A book dedicated to showing the Wicca behind Harry Potter

Let. me. be. frank.

If Abanes seriously attempts to associate the power of the elves as "God given abilities," in some attempt to Christianize Tolkein's epic, there is no way to take him seriously. Tolkein was grotesquely specific on the fact that his work was not an allegory. He was pointed in this regard. There is no allegory. Tolkein despised allegories.

Yes, Tolkein is influenced by Christian themes in style of writing. His battle between good and evil bears some similarity to Christian views. However, the overarching metaphysic is so foreign from Christianity, that the association is laughable. Add to this Tolkein's own heated and pointed words when people tried to associate him either with religion or war movements, and there is no way to take Abanes seriously.

He has ignored the author's own principles in this regard, ignored their core style of writing. If he can so grossly misrepresent Tolkein, a man whose attitude regarding metaphor has been known for more than 50 years, how can I take his words regarding Wiccan influence in Harry Potter seriously? He demonstrated already that he has no clue what he is talking about.

I would like to thank the author of the review for pointing out that this is his attitude towards Tolkein. It saved me the mony of trying to buy this book.

http://www.espministries.com/topic_harry.htm

^ "He is the product of J. K Rowling, a student of mythology who consulted with members of Wicca in order to accurately write about witchcraft in her book series on Harry Potter."

Considering the wiccan practices actually listed in the link I gave you...

She did a terrible job if she wanted to portray wicca properly. The series is almost comical when viewed as a representation of wicca. It relies on too many gross stereotypes and misrepresentations of practices to be taken seriously.

http://www.retakingamerica.com/harry_potter_01.html

So, um, let's see... *donces*

Not only that, but every Wicca/Witch I've met has actually given Harry Potter to their children as an extra-curricular study into the occult.

And I would label them fools, 100%. The text is useless in this regard without a primer to decipher its imagery, and drivel when you manage to have even that at your access.

Poorly done imagery does not equate to properly portrayed religious iconography or methodology.

Retaking America's complaint is the generalistic complaint that we shouldn't have any sort of magic in our books on the off-chance of leading people astray. I really don't see why they don't build a commune and leave the society. There's far too much that could have a bad influence on their children by their standards.

And... calling the phoenix pagan is deceptively oversimplified, considering its presence in a host of mythos over the whole of the earth. It's not some neo-pagan construct. No, it ain't Christian, but neither is necessarily religious.

"There is no possibility that she could have just made up wizards carrying wands because...well...nearly all fiction portrays it that way? I am not Wiccan or Pagan, but I have never heard of a precise measuring system for wands - are the two related in some way? How did Tolkien know, then, to create Gandalf with a staff?"

Tolkien, for one, grossly oversized Gandalf's staff. THAT was a fantasy staff. And if you must know, a wand has to be the length of your forearm. You can check out http://wiccaforums.com/forums/index.php there for more information on wand sizing.

And sorry for going off topic. I'm just really opposed to teaching religion in school. No matter how vague it is.

And I would, frankly, remind both of you that Tolkein neither allegorized the occult nor Christianity. The references on staff lengths is borderline immaterial. Any coincidence here is just that: Coincidence.

As to teaching religion in schools, may I humbly suggest that you dump all of the greek myths, the greek epics, the epic of gilgamesh, and most of world literature, as almost all of the ancient texts were religious on some level.

I view your position to be reactionary and unfounded, demonstrating a double standard that you resolutely refuse to acknowledge.

(Oh, and by the way, those measurements varied significantly in HP between characters, not necessarily equating to the forearm though the forearm was measured in book 1. After all, after Harry's arm was measured, he was given incredibly varied length wands, and I don't recall that the wand he selected was necessarily his forearm's length. You're grasping at straws here.)