Apparently several battle axes at Fargo decided that a school trip to the H.P. movie was in fact a religious practice worshiping our lord and savior, Harry Potter. This, in turn, means that it is a violation of church and state. Take a look.
FARGO, N.D. (Reuters) - A witchcraft controversy brewing in a North Dakota town forced a local school to cancel a field trip to a screening of the new Harry Potter movie on Friday.
About 100 students from Agassiz Middle School in Fargo were slated to attend the opening day of the widely anticipated movie, ``Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone,'' which revolves around the adventures of a young wizard in a world of nonmagical mortals known as muggles.
All the students, mainly aged between 12 and 15, had parental permission to attend the trip to a local movie house during school hours.
But a few concerned parents and one local radio personality successfully killed the trip after raising concerns about the movie's depiction of witchcraft.
The fact that some consider witchcraft a religion, the protesters said, meant that the school-led trip to the movie theater would constitute a violation of the separation of church and state and possibly lead to legal action.
``It's a little bizarre,'' said Fargo School Superintendent David Flowers, who supported the field trip. ``We believe that we were on firm ground in letting the kids go. But (the school) made the decision ... that they would just as soon not be embroiled in a controversy.''
Meanwhile in Memphis at least two Catholic schools said they were keeping the series of ``Harry Potter'' books by author J.K. Rowling out of their libraries because of the witches and wizardry content.
``Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone'' opened on Friday throughout the United States and was widely expected to break box-office records.
I'm not exactly sure why the school was taking it's students to see Harry Potter of all things. IMO, it really isn't the schools place to be taking kids to theaters to see block-buster movies rather than teaching them something that would be useful in their lives. If they wanna see H.P. they can do it on a Saturday. With that being said I think it's idiotic that going to see H.P. would be counted as a violation of the seperation of church and state.
When using that kind of logic they can say that a school taking a bunch of kids to see Star Wars would be a violation of the seperation of C&S too sense it involves some made up, sci-fi religions. In that case, the mighty Jedi-knights and the Sith. Same would be true if a school let it's students watch Star Trek 5 or any Star Trek episode involving any type of religions. Especally the ones that dealt heavily with the Bajorans. This is just stupid know matter how you slice it! I'm leaving.
Posted by Constellation of One (Member # 332) on :
For a church-state violation to occur, the school would need to be actively promoting a specific religion, or actively promoting the lack of one (atheism). Assuming that this wasn't the case, and there isnt some "witchcraft agenda" going on at this school, then there was no violation. Otherwise, social studies classes could never study other religions. Interestingly enough, I wonder of those teachers who show Star Wars to their students after final exams are committing a violation. After all, we all know that The Force is a mystical religion, don't we? Chuckle, chuckle.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
If all the kids had parental permission, who was the fuckwit that complained?
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
Man, don't you guys get it, there's always gonna be some messed up ultra religious screw-ups that points at every single new thing that comes along and said:
"Oh my gawd! that's un-religious practice, it will burn in hell with any one that supports it!"
The secret is, let those mad dogs with rabies keep on their crazy barking (or ranting) and simply turn your head to the other way, and maybe occationally turn back and laugh at them just for kicks.
[ November 19, 2001: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Yes, Blue, that's what we're doing in this very thread ... turning back and laughing at them. Thank you for being so observant, come again.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
A) this is dumb, no question
B) it's standard public school policy, as some people object to just as dumb things on the Christian or general patriotic side of things
C) I, too, would love to know why they're taking a field trip to go see this movie. That's not a field trip: it's a vacation. You LEARN stuff at field trips.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Harry Potter is evil! eeeeeeeeeevil!
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Spoilers$$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yeah, actually I heard that in the next book, Harry Potter will reveal his true identity as the fallen angel, Lucifer, and will unleash a dark and mortal terror upon the earth. Then, crossing the the fourth wall as it were, he will thank his loyal fans and encourage them to offer up their immortal souls to the dark lord. He will then give detailed instructions on how to cast a mind control spell on the parents using only the intestines of a cocker spaniel and three bowls of Cap'n Crunch.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
That's not the plot of Harry Potter Book #5, that's my Autobiography!
Anyway, anybody who thinks that 'Harry Potter' bears any similarity to the Wiccan or any other actual religious-type organization has to be several letters short of an alphabet.
In any case, you can come to my Library and see that I have at least two copies of each Harry Potter book on the shelves, and if anybody tries to ban them here, I will ridicule them, berate them publicly, and then proceed to eat their souls.
[ November 20, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
Thank god you don't live in the south. Do you have any idea what the yokles around here will do to you if you said that in public? lol.
[ November 20, 2001: Message edited by: MIB ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Probably less than they'd like to.
I'm not a religious-type conservative, but I AM a 'Right to Keep and Bear Arms' Conservative... at least partly because I'm NOT a religious-type conservative, and there has to be SOME way to even the odds when the peasants with torches come...
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Well, its nice to know when Omega's ego gets too big to handle I'll have a foxhole buddy Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
Oh you are gonna pay for this, Jeff. LMAO. Cute. Very cute......
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I've just started reading "The Philosopher's Stone" myself, before I go and see the movie.
On a related point, does anyone know if there's a web-site that lists the differences between the English and American versions of the books? I'm guessing that "secondary school" gets changed to high-school, but I'm curious about the part where he goes into a pub in London.
I'm curious... Did they have to film some scenes two different ways, to fix any sorcerer/philosopher, soccer/football, &c. problems? I mean, considering that the movie actually has different titles in the US and UK ("Sorcerer" vs. "Philosopher"), I would think they would at least have accounted for that dialogue...
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Uh, I think that would be taken care of by re-dubbing (and not reshooting) scenes.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Oh, right, no-one's going to notice when the actor's mouth says one thing, but the sound says something else. I don't think they were on that low of a budget...
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Actually, TSN, redubbing is *always* done, mostly for the differences in the TV version of the film from the theatrical release and so on.
You see the TV trailer for "Training Day"? Denzel Washington says "King Kong ain't got nothing on me!" In the movie, he says "King Kong ain't got shit on me!" Did you notice that the trailer was overdubbed? I doubt it.
[ November 21, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
No, actually, I haven't seen it. And I quite frequently notice the dubbing-out of "bad" words in TV-airings of movies.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
As I understand it, after a film has finished filming, the actors all have to go "over-dub" their lines for a clean audio cut. While there, they re-dub certain lines for different 'versions' of the film.
But that's assuming there are differences between the N. American and European release.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
And how many films have differences between the US and European versions? Hardly any. And none I can think of have dubbing differences (except maybe kids films, but since they don't have problems with the Rugrats saying "fanny" on TV, I don't think the film would be different).
Austin Powers 1 had a couple of scenes remvoed in the US version though, for some reason. The scene with the henchman's wife after he is killed, and the henchman's stag party after he's killed were both cut out of the US version, for some reason.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
And included in the DVD's "Special Features" menu for the N. American release. Hilarious. I don't know why they were cut, except possibly to make the film fit a tighter time spot.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I wasn't talking about just over-dubbing. I was tlaking about over-dubbing different words than what's being said in the video. If someone's mouth is forming "sorcerer", and the sound "philosopher" comes out, it's going to be pretty obvious. Watch TNG's "The Battle" and see how obvious it is when they switch two words as near as "constitution" and "constellation".
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
See? Proof positive that its done.
And again, do we know that it was even done in Harry Potter?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
But, in that case, they didn't know ahead of time that they would need to change it.
You need to understand something: There are two versions of the book. The original is Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, which does things like referring to soccer as "football". That's the one Rowling wrote, and it was released in England. The title of the movie, as released over there, is also Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is an editted version of the book which was released over here. The movie, as released here, has a matching title.
If they used "sorcerer" XOR "philosopher" in the movie, it wouldn't even match the movie's title in one of the markets. That would be rather silly.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
But do we know that there are two versions of the film? Can we please ascertain that first, okay? And I'm sure that if there ARE two cuts, they were planning on them during filming and just did some dubbing action. CGI can, as I understand it, work wonders.
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
I know my sister, who is in 8th grade, went on a Field Trip to see Harry Potter on opening day.
God only knows how a school expects kids to sit through a nearly 3-hour movie without causing trouble, though...
[ November 22, 2001: Message edited by: The359 ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Jeff: I was pointing out that there almost have to be two versions. Otherwise, it'll look stupid.
And why are you even arguing w/ me about this? All I did was ask a question. If you haven't got the answer, what are you talking about?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
It takes two to argue. And I think what we're arguing about is:
TSN - "They filmed it two ways whenever someone said 'Sorcerer' or 'Philosopher'"
Me - "They overdubbed it."
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
An interview I read somewhere seemed to agree with Tim's line of thinking. Besides, there's (at least in the "Philosopher's" Canadian version) a shot of the page that Hermione's reading off that very clearly says "Philosopher's Stone." Unless American sound editors can now dub over visual images, one would assume there are duplicate shots.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Not neccessarily, The_Tom. CGI. Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I didn't say they filmed it twice. I asked if they filmed it twice, and said that it seemed to me to be the most likely course of action.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Isn't that what we're disagreeing over? Seems to me it'd be easier to re-dub and CGI over any troublesome parts. That way, you don't have to do two cuts of the movie (just two sound versions).
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
TSN --
-- according to this week's "Entertainment Weekly" (pg. 32), you were right ... ::grumble::
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Nothing new about that. :-)
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Yes it is.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Er, Jeff, are you saying that it'd be cheaper to CGI out the word "Philopher's" and replace it with "Sorcerer's" that to get someone to print off a page twice? What made world of cheap CGI do you live in, anyway?
What's the book/film called in Canada anyway?
And was there really any need to replace "football" with "soccer"? The kids are all English. Don't Americans know that we call Soccer "Football"? It's not like British people watch Friends and get confused when people talk about a version of football where people pick the ball up with their hands.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, they changed it in the book.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I just think its odd that there are two different cuts of the film (not in terms of added or deleted scenes), where they actually filmed certain parts of it twice. Ridiculous ... and pointless, IMHO.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Yes.
So, should they have kept it the British way? Or the altered US-way?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Its set in Britain, isn't it? There's the answer.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Yes. You may blame Scholastic Press for the travesty that is "Sorceror's Stone."
Liam: The correct titles (and covers) are in use in Canada.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I'd apologize on behalf of this country for screwing it all up, but, honestly, I prefer not to associate myself w/ them too much...
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Too late Tim. Sorry.
Is there anywhere apart from the US that uses "Sorceror's Stone"?
Having just seen the film, I think they cleverly edited out almost all of the distinctly British words in the film to save them from having to overdub. "Philosopher's Stone" was also usually said while the character had their back to the camera.
Overall, quite fun. A few good lines were taken out. And I wasn't too keen on Dumbledore. He was okay, but in the book he's a little bit more Roald Dahl-eccentric old man. In the film, he was just "wise old man". Robbie Coltrane was excellent as Hagrid though.
Now to read the other 3 books.
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
My question is why they felt it was necessary to replace all the British-English words with an American-English equivalent. Do they think that we are stupid hicks who wouldn't be able to understand English when we hear it?
*Suddenly remembers that the U.S. has the poorest quality of education in the entire first world and that most of the kids in the area he lives in can't read nor speak English in the first place.*
*sigh* Nevermind. I'll be in Canada if you need me.
[ November 27, 2001: Message edited by: MIB ]
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
You better get here fast we are changing our immigration and refugee requirements and I don't think that literate would qualify you as a refugee.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Reason for change to "Sorcerer's Stone": American kids have never heard of alchemy and the things derived from it.
Reason for this: Substandard literary/scientific education.
Reason for this: combined influence of ultraright and ultraleft wings. Ultraright doesn't want anything taught that might have even the slightest connection to science OR non-Fundie magic, Ultraleft favors ignorance of cultural background of Europe (where alchemy, true philosophy, and 'Philosopher's stone' concepts flourished) in favor of manufactured pseudo-plurality.
Reason for this: Lack of First of Two.
Conclusion: First of Two for Dictator.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
It still doesn't make much sense. I mean, it had to be explained, anyway. Why just make up a previously-nonexistant name for it that lends absolutely nothing to understanding it?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Well, every kid knows what a sorcerer is. Not every kid knows what a philosopher is. And a sorcerer's stone, being a stone made my sorcers, make a little more modern semantic sense than a philosopher's stone, given the modern meaning of 'philosopher.'
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Yes, but that's still not a good reason to change it. "We thought it would make more sense". If we used that logic, every film and TV show would have Friends-style titles.
"First Contact" would be "The One where the Borg attack".
"The Search for Spock" would be "We know where Spock is. We're not searching for him. We're going to pick him up. Duh."
"Insurrection" would be "Small upset that's not really important at all, and certainly doesn't warrent such a grand term as Insurrection".
"American kids have never heard of alchemy and the things derived from it."
While that's probably true, I'd say that most British kids have never heard of alchemy either. It didn't make them throw the book down in disgust.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Er...
"Sorcerer" has one less syllable than "Philosopher," so it's easier to remember / pronounce / talk about in this day of TV saturation when kids have a attention span of a nanosecond.
Plus, 'Sorcerers' are cool, and throw lightning and make brooms carry water, while 'philosophers' suggests old guys who talk a lot, which, while still an audience-holder in the UK, isn't as attractive in the quick-gimmie USA. Hence the marketing change.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Shouldn't "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" be changed to "Tim Pot and the room of kick-boxing" then?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
How do you get Tim from Harry? Is kick-boxing really a secret?
Posted by USS Vanguard (Member # 130) on :
No, kickboxing is not a secret, but it once was many years ago. Then there came the savior of kickboxing who brought it to the masses.
That savior's name was none other than Jean Claude Van Damme. Or as I call him, the greatest thespian/kick boxing/Belgium Waffle to ever grace the silver screen.
no offense to anyone from Belgium
In fact, I believe he saves Harry Potter in the fifth installment by kick boxing the muggles into the ocean.
oh, should i put spoilers there?
[ November 28, 2001: Message edited by: USS Vanguard ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Only if you're MIB.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I got "Tim" from "Harry" because "Tim" is a shorter word, thus helping those children whose attention spans are too short to get through a 5 letter name.
I changed "secrets" to "Kick-boxing" because secrets are what girls whisper about on the playground, and kick-boxing is violent and cool.
With that being said I think it's idiotic that going to see H.P. would be counted as a violation of the seperation of church and state. 