Re: banning CATCHER

Thor Cameron (my_colours@hotmail.com)
Sat, 19 Jun 1999 10:23:39 -0700 (PDT) 

Actually, Jim, I in my original post, my main point was that those who seek 
to ban literature from the masses have been valuable to me, because today 
and historically, they have an uncanny knack for picking the good stuff to 
ban & a good portion of the quality literature I've read has been from 
seeking out the books on the big "hit list" like the one I grew up with in a 
Southern Baptist church.

I could go on for hours about the activities of various individuals or 
groups, but, in fact, I was praising diversity, in that, these people and 
groups whose views are so diametrically opposed to mine are nonetheless 
valuable to me by paying attention to their findings, but not their 
conclusions.

Respectfully,
Thor.



>Sheesh, Thor :)
>
>Ok, your initial post, seeking to skewer the Falwells and the Robertsons
>of the world (written in a manner I tend to distrust because while it
>mentioned those names it seemed to actually be referring to the actions
>of a small group in Colorado) indentified Wycliffe and the Protestant
>Reformation as the origin of the value of freedom of speech in our
>society.
>
>My first reply to this would be that if you want to complain about
>Falwell, refer to Falwell's actions.  In my experience, in general, his
>public statements come across as being snide and uninformed.  So he
>usually just sticks his foot in his mouth (e.g., Teletubbies) and makes
>everyone think, What a jerk.  His actions are, at worst (in general),
>counterproductive to his own ends and harmless to anyone else.  What's
>really interesting is that Cal Thomas came out with a recent editorial
>describing the past errors of the Moral Majority.  Very informative, you
>may want to look it up some time.  However, regarding Falwell, I've also
>read interviews **by interviewers hostile to him from the outset** in
>which the interviewer was suprised by Falwell's deep humility and
>consideration.  I guess there's a difference between a person's public
>persona and real personality...
>
>Now, if you want to complain about Robertson, I think you could find a
>pretty strong basis for that as well.
>
>But if you want to complain about a particular group's actions in
>Colorado, why don't you describe their actions in some detail and drop
>these associations with people uninvolved with the situation?  That comes
>across as being a bit paranoid and a bit bigoted.
>
>See, I've heard a lot of talk about censorship before.   I distrust about
>half of it, because about half the time the word "censorship" is just
>inflammatory rhetoric used by one side's opponents.  Sometimes parents
>don't want certain books in their kid's elementary, middle or High
>Schools.  This isn't a censorship issue; disagreements here are over what
>is considered "age appropriate" liteature.  It's not censorship, of
>course, so long as parents can take their kids to the local bookstores or
>libraries and get copies of the books.
>
>Now, actions to stop THOSE activities would indeed be censorship.  So,
>what's happening in Colorado, Thor?  Really?
>
>Next, regarding your reference to Wycliffe and the influence of the
>Reformation, there's some merit to this, and of course you mentioned it
>by way of criticism of the religious right (in that they were ignoring
>their own first principles), but the question I have to ask here is, "If
>they religious right is ignoring their own first principles by seeking to
>  censor specific books is the problem, then, with religion, or with
>something else?"
>
>I suggest that the problem is with something else.  See, the cultural
>left, via the PC movement, is every bit as censorious, self righteous,
>and intolerant as the religious right can be at times.  Here's an excerpt
>from an article I have, I'll give the URL for the full thing below:
>
>"How does the Cultural Left respond to the Religious Right?  Consider the
>1992 case in which feminist professor Catharine MacKinnon and her
>students forced the University of Michigan to cancel an exhibition called
>_Porn'im'age'ry: Picturing Prostitutes_.  This collection, primarily of
>photographs, was prepared by women -- two of whom had been prostitutes.
>MacKinnon called the exhibit dangerous to women.  She had not actually
>seen the exhibit, but a description of the contents was sufficient; she
>already had the conviction that pornographic images were harmful to
>women.  In this and so many other examples, the Cultural Left is judging
>art by its political correctness (13).
>
>Go to http://members.aol.com/antiutopia/aesth.htm for the full text of
>the article.  It's entitled Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered.
>
>The problem isn't with religion or the cultural left, but with the
>subversion of all values to an all encompassing ideology -- be it
>Christian or Muslim fundamentalism, Communism (talk about censorship in
>the atheist Soviet Union for awhile :) ), Fascism, or the ideology
>driving the Cultural Left in America.  In the past, religion (as you
>pointed out) has been a force preventing this imbalance.  Considering
>that the religious right in America only represents a small percentage of
>Western Christians, I'd say religion probably still does serve those
>ends...
>
>Jim
>
>On Fri, 18 Jun 1999 10:37:09 -0700 (PDT) Thor Cameron
><my_colours@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> >OK, Cam,
> >
> >I'm with you the whole way except your knee-jerk use of the term
> >"Facism".
> >Facism is a form of government based on economic expansion through
> >military
> >expansion.  Although Facists have burned books, in fact, most book
> >burnings
> >have been done by non-facists, including good, old-fashioned
> >capitolist
> >American chistians.
> >I'm not sure why I felt the need to defend facism, but, well,
> >There it is, then.
> >Thor
> >
> >
> >>This all reminds me of an item I once read in `Mad' magazine (yes, as
> >a
> >>true postmodernist even I go lowbrow occasionally) which was a
> >picture of a
> >>teenage boy salivating over a copy of `Catcher in the Rye' with a
> >caption
> >>like `Do those people who ban books really believe kids are going to
> >head
> >>straight to their local libraries for a bit of titillation'? Book
> >banning
> >>is akin to book burning which is akin to fascism. I've seen the moral
> >>minority at work in my own country via the `Lolita' crap (which in
> >any case
> >>was all a stunt to get a conservative independent MP onto the
> >government's
> >>side anyway) and it ain't pretty. Still, like Jason said it inspires
> >you to
> >>read a helluva lot of fine literature you may not have thought of
> >otherwise
> >>(:
> >>
> >>Camille
> >>verona_beach@geocities.com
> >>@ THE ARTS HOLE http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442
> >>@ THE INVERTED FOREST http://www.angelfire.com/pa/invertedforest
> >>
> >>
> >> > > Hello, all.
> >> > >
> >> > > I would like to come out in defense of the reoccuring plan to
> >ban
> >>CITR.
> >>  It
> >> > > is a dangerous book.  Nevermind the languge; there's worse on
> >>prime-time tv.
> >> > >   In fact, it is dangerous because of its subtlety and
> >underlying
> >>themes.
> >> > > The same people who want to ban Salinger are the ones who find
> >>independant
> >> > > thinking frightening.  People shouldn't be put through the
> >ringer of
> >>new
> >> > > ideas and strange thoughts.
> >> > > This is the same group that hated Wycliffe, because knowledge in
> >the
> >>hands
> >> > > of the public is....  unpredictable.
> >> > > We need to support the idea of banning.  Not banning per se,
> >just the
> >>idea
> >> > > of it.  Do you think more than a handful of people would have
> >read the
> >> > > Bible's English trans. if the church hadn't fought it
> >tooth-and-nail?
> >> > > Thank god, (with a small g) for groups that directly affect my
> >life
> >>due
> >>to
> >> > > their close proximity to me, like Coloradans for Family Values.
> >
> >>Groups
> >>like
> >> > > this pointed my way as a youth towards books that I may have
> >otherwise
> >> > > neglected, thanks to their banning wish list.
> >> > > The old saying "It takes all kinds" is so true: these bizarros
> >work as
> >>a
> >> > > near-perfect inverse barometer.
> >> > > Thank you, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, et al., you freaks have
> >shown
> >>me
> >> > > the light, or at least where I should be looking for it.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thor
> >> >
> >> > Have to agree with Thor on this one.  In High School I considered
> >the
> >> > banned book list my summer reading list.  In my high school we
> >also had
> >>a
> >> > pretty crafty English teacher who had the list posted on the wall.
> > She
> >> > kept the books in strong box in her closet.  (she used to like to
> >show
> >>the
> >> > covers to the class)  Every year she'd recruit a few seniors to
> >spread
> >>the
> >> > rumor that the combonation was 12-34-02 for the lock.  Inevitably
> >people
> >> > stole books from the box.  I stole _1984_. (isn't it funny our
> >school
> >> > banned this book)  She later told me she has tons of copies of
> >these
> >>books
> >> > in her garage at home that she gets from flea markets and the
> >like.  She
> >> > hopes they get stolen.  Thank you Mrs. Hornick, for understanding
> >simple
> >> > teen psychology.
> >> >
> >> > -j
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________________________
> >Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
>
>___________________________________________________________________
>Get the Internet just the way you want it.
>Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
>Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com