Outing a Fictional Character

Musings

It has been all over the news, how JK Rowlings has stated that her character, Dumbledore in the Harry Potter novels is Gay. Man, listen to the uproar and how so many Evangelicals are having fits, as if they didn’t have enough to vent about the Harry Potter series. You know my ‘[[gaydar]]‘ has to be off, because I have watched the movies, and I never tumbled to the fact that he could be gay. I mean it just never occurred to me to look beyond the pure escapism of the movies.

Maybe if I had read the books, I would have tumbled, but I don’t know. I don’t go around looking for gay characters in everything I read. I choose books based on the story, and hey, if a gay guy is in it, all the better. Still, this whole nonsense about the Harry Potter books, characters is a bit interesting to follow. To see how so many of the Religious Right oppose the books, due to their dealings with witchcraft and the supernatural.

Now, with this revelation, I have to wonder at what it is they truly object to? After reading a piece in the Globe & Mail, it hit me. The books are about ‘tolerance of differences‘ which is something these Evangelicals simply cannot accept, or allow. It means their hold on people is diminished, as people become more open to reason, to being accepting of those who are different.

Last thing you would expect from those who profess to follow GOD.

Reminds me of the movie, Latter Days as well. How intolerant the Mormon Church was towards a gay youth. How vile their actions are when one supposedly sins. Kind of explains Mitt Romney, in some degree.

I love how, in this article, a family therapist & professor from Dalhousie talks about how to address the issue of ‘discussing‘ the outing, if asked.

I can imagine many young people having one of two reactions to this ‘outing’ of Dumbledore. Many will celebrate. It will be another way that we as a society can demonstrate concretely our tolerance for differences. That will be nice to see. As nice as watching Nova Scotian youth dress in pink shirts to protest the bullying of a young person some weeks ago who was taunted with slurs just because he wore pink.

Many other youth, however, like my own son, will respond with an eye roll. “So what?” they’ll say. It’s not apathy. It’s wonderment at why something like this is newsworthy. On this issue, I think the kids are way ahead of us adults. They’ve been raised amid gay pride and same-sex marriage. They, for the most part, make me proud of the tolerance they show to each other. (source - Globe & Mail)

I think in a nutshell, that illuminates the differences between Canada and the United States. It also helps put into focus what ‘religious intolerance‘ creates when allowed to be a part of one’s politics. This is how George Bush has ruled America, and how our own Stephen Harper would like it to be here. The inability to accept differences is what makes America a dangerous place, and is what keeps Canada safe.

The recent Provincial Election in Ontario helped define those differences as well. (see comment ‘Liberals Win Ontario‘) We are a tolerant people, we have our core of beliefs, and we acknowledge that they aren’t all the same. We accept that, yet when some Politician tries to foist their views on us, we rebel. We don’t accept it, not because we are elitists, racists, but because we believe in differences. We accept it, embrace it even, which is why our history isn’t filled with race riots, why we don’t have the gap between races as the United States does.

We aren’t smug, simply we hold our religious beliefs to be ours. I mean look at the United States, and ask yourself how many Presidents have been Catholic? John Kennedy comes to mind, but he was the first. Yet we have had Pierre Trudeau, Jean Chretien, Paul Martin, to just name a few. And their religious affiliation was never an issue. Why?

It is simple. Sure we want our leaders to believe in GOD, as we do, but we also look to them to lead us, to embrace all of us, and not just those who have the same core beliefs. We want a leader who can not let a religious doctrine interfere in his/her ability to govern. Hell we even had Bill Van der Zalm as a Premier, and he is an Evangelical, but while his beliefs were his, he didn’t let them prevent him from putting condoms in schools, during the AIDS crisis.

That is what we EXPECT from our leaders. Something both American’s and Stephen Harper do not understand. (see comment ‘Pushing Religion at My Expense‘) They are blinded by their INTOLERANCES, their DOCTRINES, instead of being open minded.

I don’t know if I am right, I don’t think anyone can claim that title absolutely, not even the Pope. The difference is that I am willing to accept that I could be wrong, and that others might be right. It is that ability to accept, to allow for a difference of view, of opinion, that I believe makes us Canadians. It is why I oppose Stephen Harper and his brand of conservatism so much. He isn’t willing to accept that anyone who doesn’t believe as he does, could be right.

That isn’t the Canadian Way.

Ian @ October 25, 2007