So I read the new Harry Potter book.

I just lost all my street cred, didn't I?

Well, screw you, because a hot guy gave me the book and said, "This is good, you should read it so we can talk about it." And I said to myself, "Self, even though our online blog readership will be disgusted by our slumming in the fetid gutter of popular culture, we still ought to read this thing so we can chat up that hot guy." I defy any of you to tell me I made the wrong call.

My first impression was that it is moderately interesting, reasonably well written, and has enough snogging and murder to hold the interest of your typical young adult. Pretty good, but nothing I would write a blog post about, particularly since my bud Aerosaucer already did so.

But that was before I learned how dangerous Harry Potter books are. As we all know, dangerous things are very very cool, and I have it on good authority that Harry Potter is quite dangerous/cool.

Tim Todd, publisher of the "Truth For Youth" Bible and preacher in the Tim Todd Ministries, is concerned by many features of the Harry Potter series. These features include, "things like sacrificing animals and emphasizing power, regardless of good or evil. Or offering up blood sacrifices, and things like boiling what seems to be a baby alive in a cauldron, or being possessed by demons..." Todd asserts, "[T]hese are not things that we want to have our children subjected to."

While I can't share Tim's aversion to the demon possession of little children (because a demon-controlled toddler would both adorable and badass), I am willing to give him a fair hearing on why books that describe animal sacrifice, blood sacrifice, boiling or burning children alive, and demon possession should not be handed out willy-nilly to impressionable youth. Todd seems very sure that if we did allow access to such books the children would be so captivated by the power of the written word that they would drop their GameCube controllers and start drinking each other's blood.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure the Bible does specifically condone and endorse all the acts that preacher/publisher Tim Todd finds worrisome. Seeing as how all kids, everywhere, read the Bible, it probably won't hurt to have them review these subjects in the Harry Potter series. So let's go straight to the Biblical source...

Let's start with the most theologically murky issue: cooking children. The LORD Himself commanded Jephthah to burn a child alive in Judges 11:29-40, so one might assume that the LORD is pro-baby-burning. However, the child was Jephthah's own daughter, so perhaps he was within his rights to dispose of her while the "baby" in the Harry Potter cauldron was not being murdered by its rightful owner. Jephthah also wasn't boiling his baby girl, he was burning her, so it is possible to read this as the LORD's endorsement of preparing childflesh by roasting but not by boiling, steaming, or pressure-cooking. If we could establish that the Harry Potter cauldron-baby was a first born male of some kind then I'm sure God would be pleased, as the LORD does seem to have a continual interest in first born sons (either collecting them himself using plague or ordering His followers to burn the wee ones for him), but I don't know that the Harry Potter book provides enough information in this case. I think it's best to give the baby-boiling the benefit of the doubt, since Harry Potter and God's Word appear equally ambiguous on the subject.

Animal sacrifice is much more easily addressed. Animal sacrifice is encouraged by the LORD throughout the Old and New Testaments, with His tastes ranging from rams to oxen to birds to fish. Even Joseph and Mary sacrifice two doves, and the LORD picked them to rear His only son. I think Tim Todd can rest assured that the depiction of animal sacrifice in Harry Potter will only encourage kids to participate a practice that honors the LORD...the butchering of animals for personal spiritual gain.

As for demon possession, I have watched both The Exorcist and Constantine, so I figure I know the score as well as anybody out there. It is common knowledge that humans are frequently invaded by malevolent spirits, and I think it's important to educate our youth on demon possession and how to avoid risk factors like handling of cursed objects and listening to rock music. The authors of the Bible seem to agree with me, providing comprehensive and instructive descriptions of demon possession in Luke, Acts, Mark, and Matthew. There are also pointers on how to perform an exorcism, though I think kids should be reminded to always seek help from a grown-up if they want to cast out some hellspawn.

Finally, I was especially confused to hear that Tim Todd doesn't want kids learning about blood sacrifice. Mr. Todd is publishing a youth-oriented Bible, after all, and one would expect him to include the fact that the Christian faith is pretty much founded entirely upon the blood sacrifice of a guy my Christian friends tell me was called "Jesus." If knowing about blood sacrifice is going to make kids evil, what the fuck are we supposed to do with all these WWJD bracelets?

Thus it would appear that the Harry Potter books are not dangerous (and therefore not cool) after all. I was feeling pretty low when I worked this out, but then a friend reminded me that things which adults BELIEVE are dangerous are also somewhat cool, and things that adults feel are wicked are very very very cool. I felt better. Thanks to the paranoid efforts of Tim Todd, the American Family Association, and all the wonderful Ned Flanderses out there, the Harry Potter books are both totally safe and extremely cool.

Way too tired for real post right now, but must award extra special coolness points for the day to:

Sarah, for being so sexy it's just unfair

Jay, for being so groovy it's just unfair

Joe, for being something I can't quite put my finger on, but which might very well be genius

Jeff, for killing Aurora...no mean feat, and further proof that his ass-kickery is unparalleled

Long Jon Gottesman, for being significantly cooler than any father has a right to be

Evan, for being the only almost-14-year-old on the planet who is excited at the prospect of being finally old enough to work at a supermarket

Wednesday is a truly important day in history.

Ninety-three years ago this Wednesday, the first pawnbroking ordinance was passed in New York City. Seventy-three years ago, Henry Schoolcraft discovered the source of the Mississippi River in Minnesota.

Wednesday will also mark the 60th aniversary of the explosion of the first atomic bomb, in New Mexico, as well as the 140th aniversary of the fire that destroyed PT Barnum's museum. In Geneva, 51 years back, the United States, Great Britain and France reached an accord on Indochina which divided Vietnam into two countries, North and South, along the 17th parallel.

Celebrities, too, have a reason to honor July 13th. On July 13, 1994, O.J. Simpson handed over some hair samples for testing, and Jeff Gillooly was sentenced to 2 years for the attack on Nancy Kerrigan. The BBC banned the Sex Pistols' "No One is Innocent" exactly 27 years ago on this most hallowed day, and Ol' Blue eyes made his recording debut on July 13, 1939.

And if we reach all the way back to July 13, 1568, we can celebrate Dean of St. Paul's Cathedral and his perfection of a way to bottle beer.

But this Wednesday also marks the twenty third aniversary of perhaps the most powerful historical event of all time: the day the All-Star Game was played outside the United States for the first time. They played in Montreal, Canada.

Seriously, though, Wednesday is my birthday. Candy, action figures, and birthday spankings will be graciously accepted.

When I think of Independence Day, I think of a celebration of freedom from tyranny. (Well, actually, first I think of that kickass image of the White House being blown up by space aliens, but I try not to let Will Smith movies totally define my concept of reality.) Thanks to King George The Lesser, Pat Robertson, and pretty much everybody below the Mason-Dixon line, when I think of tyranny I tend to immediately think of Christianity. In the spirit of this holiday weekend, then, I think we should all take some time to celebrate the fact that American citizens are not subject to the rules laid out by the Christian holy book.

To get you all whipped into a suitably self-righteous secularist frenzy, here's a list of things we would not be allowed to do if the Biblical definition of sin were enshrined in law:

Wear pants or enjoy gold jewelry, if you're a girl (1 Pe 3:3, Deut 22:5)

Paint pictures like Vincent Van Gogh's Starry Night (Exodus 20:4)

Opt not to read the Bible every single day (Ps 1:2; Acts 17:11; 1Pe 2:2; 1 Tim 4:13)

Covet things (Exodus 20:17)

Wear cotton-poly blends (Leviticus 19:19)

Enjoy the antics of astrologers (penalty for writing a horoscope column is death, according to Deut 17:7)

Refuse to be baptized in the name of Jesus (Lk 7:29,30)

Eat a rare steak (Acts 15:20)

Participate in a comic roast (Eph 5:4 NIV)

Look at Angelina Jolie (Tim 2:22)

Give or receive tattoos (Lev 19:28; Deut 14:1)

Think something nasty about your rotten boss, even if you never say it or act upon it in any way (Mt 15:19; Mk 7:21)

Be snarky to your parents, brag, or gossip (Ro 1:32)

Think about what you feel like wearing to work this morning, or about what you might like to have for lunch (Mt 6:25)

Love your life (Jn 12:25)

Of course, I don't want to exclude Christian Americans from joining in this exercise, because they too are citizens and deserve to celebrate our freedoms. They can be happy that our government doesn't enforce the Biblical concept of sin as well, because if it did then they would be forbidden to pray in public (Matthew 6: 5-6), display images of Jesus (Exodus 20:4), or speak out against other people's sins (Eph 5:11,12).