The Harry Potter books and movies have garnered considerable criticism from various Christian groups, including the Catholic Church, which are concerned about magic being depicted in any positive light.

But the Associated Press reports (cited here in an Australian news story) that the Vatican praises the newest movie, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince as positively depicting the triumph of good over evil and the sacrifice sometimes needed to accomplish it, themes of adolescent love, and the evil of Voldemort's search for physical immortality.

This might be slightly off-topic. For which I apologize. I'm working from limited material as I travel. Besides which, this is one of the odder collisions of religion and politics.

We all know what the US Capitol building looks like from the outside. From the inside, however, that distinctive dome is even more distinctive, thanks to a mid-19th century fresco that looks suspiciously like an Assumption of Mary image, except the person rising into heaven is George Washington. (You can view an image of the fresco here. Washington is in the six o'clock position.)

Instead of being attended to by angels and saints, he is attended by thirteen women meant to represent the thirteen colonies. Around the outer edge of the fresco are allegories of war, agriculture, commerce and so-forth through classical (i.e. Greek/Roman) deities granting leadership and instruction.

The use of classical deities is fairly common in Washington DC, as it is in neoclassical style in general. They are used as symbols rather than representatives of actual deities. But I have to say that placing George Washington among them ascending into the clouds is a truly bizarre combination, practically deifying Washington, which would undoubtedly horrify him.

I'm writing from Washington DC this week, a city famous for a lot of old, white guys, of which I am reminded every few blocks by a statue or plaque or place name.

These old white guys created the first amendment, granting freedom of religion. Their view of religious diversity was limited in comparison to view today, and some argue that to read their writings in context is to vastly limit the definition of "religion" to what the Founding Fathers thought of it.

But the Founding Fathers were pretty clear they were talking in universal terms. The lack of references to specific religions hints at this. Also, if you really want to read the documents in context, then you have to think of Judaism and Islam being radically strange, yet still accepted. If they accepted the radically strange then, why should we not accept what we consider radically strange now?

With Michael Jackson's memorials now planned and largely performed, blogs and news articles have been looking at the variety of beliefs in Jackson's life: his mother is a Jehovah Witness, his brother is Muslim, his ex-wife is Jewish, and Michael himself seemed to be seeking.

While such a variety of faiths within a family was rare in previous centuries, when people rarely had exposure to a multitude of religions, such situations are increasingly common.

And it's not because society has suddenly become lost or confused. people don't become interested in religions about which they've never heard. Today, an entire planet worth of religion is available for those who are looking, and even those who are not actively seeking often interact with people of other faiths.

As for what Michael's own faith was, I consider it between him and God (or other deity of your choice). There have been rumors of him investigating Islam and taking interest in Judaism and Kabbalah. Good for him.

Continuing my conspiracy theory trend this week (not something I tried for, its just sometimes happens), I came across an esoteric analysis of the new Transformers movie.

The actual conspiracy theory aspect of the article doesn't really interest me, and quite frankly I think the author is giving Michael Bay and other Transformers creators way more credit than deserved as far as subtext to the film. However, it does illustrate how people can and do find additional meanings within media, regardless whether they were intended.

I will also say that Transformers does make use of widely held human imagery and belief: that something greater than us is out there (whether on a supernatural plane or another planet), and that often the conflicts among those greater things impacts life on earth. It also represents our seeking for what is out there, as well as the awesome power that can come with revelation. That's one of the reasons why these stories - even when written with mediocre skill - continue to be so appealing. We identify with the concept even if we don't believe in it in any sort of literal sense. Of course, giant robots beating the snot out of each other wins a lot of fans too.

The Internet is a wonderful thing, letting people spread ideas far more quickly than at any time previous to now. It also, however, gives a greater voice to conspiracy theorists who string together random facts and see grand motives behind them.

There's a whole category of conspiracy theory's linked to corporate logos. Apparently, many large corporations are part of an occult New World Order, and for some reason wish to advertise this fact through secret symbols common people can't recognize. (In which case, who are the symbols intended for? People already in on the secret?)

This particular article is dedicated toward worship of the planet Saturn and the god it represents. Does your logo even vaguely imply a ring around it? You're part of the conspiracy. As is usual in these sorts of theories, a variety of historical "facts" are presented to bolster their argument, even though I can't even begin to guess the basis of most of their claims. Things like:

• "Occult researchers affirm that Saturn ruled the kingdom of Atlantis and became the divine ancestor of all earthly patriarchs and kings." Apparently he reads different researchers than I. People who know their Plato (as many occultists do), know that Altantis is an allegorical invention of the Greek philosopher.
• "[M]any authos [sic] argue that the word Satan is derived from the word Saturn." Really, a Hebrew word (satan) is derived from a Latin one? How did that happen?
• "Saturn is the farthest planet from the sun, the latter being associated with the principle of Good...Saturn is consequently the celestial body that is the less exposed to the sun’s divine light and thus associated with the coldness of the principle of Evil." The writer is correct (finally!) in that the Sun is generally associated with good. The fact that Saturn is the farthest planet from the sun known to the ancients, however, is meaningless, because these cultures didn't believe in a heliocentric system. He is correct that Saturn has traditionally held many negative connotations in astrology, although there are positive interpretations of the planet as well.

Supposed references to Saturn aren't the only thing you can find in logos. Does your logo include wings? Sunbursts? Even a round, yellow object that might be compared with the sun? Occult. According to this article, symbols can't possibly represent any of the other myriad meanings that we commonly associate with them.

This stuff scares people, and these people run in packs. They feed off each other's websites. Find a conspiracy theory and google it, and you'll likely find it repeated many times elsewhere, giving the illusion of substance behind them. What these sites regularly do not do is cite from where they are getting their information, even though they often depend upon claimed authority such as "occult researchers affirm..." and "many authors argue...".

Discuss this topic in the forum!

Pope Benedict XVI declared today that carbon-dating of the bones of St. Paul "seems to confirm the unanimous and undisputed tradition that these are the mortal remains of the Apostle St. Paul."

While I have no specific reason to doubt that the bones are that of St. Paul, claiming that science confirms his identity simply isn't true and opens to the door to more scrutiny, not less. Carbon-dating confirmed the bones dates from the first of second century, and that is all. The test therefore gave no reason to doubt that the bones are St. Paul's, but that's not the same as confirming that they are.

People have good reason to believe in their faith, whatever faith they may hold. When science contradicts faith, I personally believe that faith should be reexamined (although that's certainly not the opinion of all believers). But to expect science to confirm faith is asking too much. One can logically and rationally have faith without being able to point to a scientific report that backs it up.

Discuss this topic in the forum!

Among the deluge of Michael Jackson articles to hit the web this week, one fact that kept hitting my news filters was the fact that his Thriller video, considered by many to be the best music video ever, starts out with a very blatant and, in my view, somewhat bizarre disclaimer: "Due to my strong personal convictions, I wish to stress that this film in no way endorses a belief in the occult."

Did anyone actually believe that it did? Apparently, yes, even though the music video was little more than a short horror movie and really didn't show anything more than a bunch of dancing monsters.

Is that what anyone really thinks about "the occult"? Werewolves and zombies?

The fact is, I find the mere word "occult" creeps people out. When you ask them what they think it means, they suddenly get very vague. "Well, it's dark stuff." What kind of dark stuff? "Well, I don't know the specifics. I don't want to know about such things." Ok, fair enough, but how do you know it's bad if you can't express a definition even in generalities? You're scared by a word rather than any concept behind the word.

The St. Petersberg Times released a three-part article on Scientology based on the testimony of several formerly high-ranking defectors. The paper's website is also offering a variety of additional materials (available at the same URL) including Scientology objections to the articles.

It's mostly more of the same: the Church of Scientology insisting yet again that all allegations against it are completely false and the invention of mean and spiteful people. There's not a religion as squeaky clean in the entire world as this Church claims to be.

But one of their tactics was particularly notable. "The church prepared binders of indexed material that included confessions the defectors wrote during their time in Scientology," in an attempt to prove the misbehavior of the Times' sources. Confessions are a standard part of Scientology training, meant to help unburden the soul. Members are told such confessions always remain secret, yet here the Church blatantly handed them over to a publisher. Excerpts can be found at the bottom of this page of the expose.

One confession of Mike Rinder goes so far to say "I know that when you [David Miscavige, current head of the Church] say something it is true and it is what has kept me going ..." I'm kind of at a loss of how Miscavige thought that would be a good line to release to the public. That sort of unquestioning loyalty of a leader sets off all sorts of cultic red flags.

UnreasonableFaith.com posted an interesting video on cult mentality by a woman who was both an ex-Moonie and an ex-deprogrammer.

While I don't agree with all of her points (including visually comparing celebrating Moonies with the Hitler Youth), I did particularly like her bit on potential cult-members seeking easy answers to hard questions: cult leaders often have direct connection with God, God is good ergo the leader is good, and leader can provide me with all the answers and solutions I need.

Quite frankly, however, I don't see this as a specifically cult mentality. There's a lot of members of more accepted religions who really approach religion the same way. I can't count the number of times a theological discussion has been stymied by a participant who can't say anything more than "because the Bible says so," and then can't actually say where the Bible says it because they haven't actually read the darn thing, they're just parroting their pastor, a website (because, you know, the Internet is always right), some guy on Christian Radio, or whatever.

Likewise I've dealt with numerous Wiccans all in a panic because they're trying to do a ritual but don't have access to a certain object such as an athame, sage, or a bell. "Why do you feel you need this object?" I ask. "Well, because the book I'm reading says so." Great. Wicca has no scriptures, so this isn't like someone is falling back on the words of a god: they're referencing what one Wiccan wrote as a possible ritual. Most often these sorts of readers don't even understand why the athame, sage or bell was even incorporated into said ritual. It's easier to just presume someone else has all the answers than to engage in critical religious thought.