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.