Conference hydra::dejavu

          <<< REGENT::SYS$SYSDEVICE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]RELIGION.NOTE;1 >>>
                            -< Religion Conference >-
================================================================================
Note 168.2              Boulder Book Burners Bite Bullet                  2 of 2
NEXUS::MORGAN "Heaven - a perfectly useless state."  21 lines  28-FEB-1988 19:36
                           -< Up to his old tricks? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            <<< BETHE::$DISK3:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX_1988.NOTE;5 >>>
                               -< Soapbox 1988 >-
================================================================================
Note 197.1              Boulder Book Burners Bite Bullet                  1 of 1
NEXUS::MORGAN "Heaven - a perfectly useless state."  13 lines  28-FEB-1988 19:35
                           -< Up to his old tricks? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On this disguising the book burning as a weenie roast...
    
    I have a friend who called the EPA about the Boulder Book Burning
    a week or so before the scheduled event. Evidently others had done
    the samething. The EPA threatened to sue the church if they polluted
    the air with their book burning.
    
    Consequently the pastor wimped out (musta' been a woman, Russ!) and
    tried to disgusie the burning as a church picnic. Needless to say
    the free spirited Boulderites doused his little weenie roaster and
    absconded with most of the nights fare.
    
    I would have loved to have been there... Party time!

    The Fundamentalists are fulfilling the same purpose this time around,
    that the Pharisees and Saducees (the religious "establishment" at
    the time of Christ) fulfilled back then.
    ********************************************************************
    Matthew 
    15:14  (Christ speaking of the Pharisees)  Let them alone; they be
    blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both
    shall fall into the ditch.
    
    
    DW

    My wife and I and two friends went up with Doug Johnson (the vocal
    person mentioned in the Rocky Mountain News article) to the book
    burning.  Rev. Day Tried preaching out in the parking lot (where
    they tried to burn the books) and was telling everybody that they
    were going to hell.  He preached against channelling, divanation
    (SP.), and all new age beliefs.  After preaching against channelling,
    he started to speak in tounges.  He even tried to cast demons out
    of a protester who laid down on top of the books to keep them from
    being burned.
    
    The church members were so paranoid about my friend Doug Johnson,
    they tried to put their own body guards between him and and the
    two ministers.  They thought he was there to cause violence.
    
    BTW,  The BBQ grill that they had out front to burn books was only
    a decoy.  They let the protesters get up to and dump it early in
    the evening.  They had another one going behind the church at the
    same time.  They first tried to set the books on fire by the stand
    where the were speaking from.  The protesters blocked that.  Then
    they brought around the second grill.  As they started to burn the
    books, the fire got hit by one five gal bucket of water and one
    fire ext. by protesters.

    Blessed Be,
    
    Pat

    Here's what I think, for what it's worth...
    
    I think that, once upon a time, their lived a group of religious
    leaders whose intentions were that men of evil should not get ahold
    of knowledge which could be used against good.  The religious leaders
    began making certain knowledge "sacred", "secret"; after a while,
    the fact that it was being kept from potentially evil sources made
    it be interpreted as evil, in and of itself.  The leaders attempted
    to close the door to this knowledge.  But human nature is to expand
    on knowledge, not to throw it out, and certain seekers of this
    knowledge have practiced in secrecy all this time.
    
    With the current rise in the numbers of people seeking this knowledge
    comes the realization that, if there is, indeed, power in this
    knowledge, then those with evil intent will find it, as well.  
    
    These people who would burn books still fear this knowledge; still
    fear evil; and what are we, if we do not conquer our fears?  Is
    not fear related to darkness?  Is not fear, that which allows evil
    to rule?

    I cry for the tourment of the ignorant.

    Re: .4,
    
    Once upon a time. . . 
    
    I think you're on target.  There was this empire that collapsed a few
    thousand years back which really did a job on Europe.  After the Roman
    Empire fell, all knowledge was considered OLD. There was no new
    knowledge, and what knowledge was available was preserved by the church.
    The knowledge saved by the church was considered holy and sacred.  Any 
    knowledge not known by the church was considered wrong, or evil.
    
    Dave

    Re .6 (Dave):
    
    >................................................ There was no new
    >knowledge, and what knowledge was available was preserved by the church.
    >The knowledge saved by the church was considered holy and sacred.  Any 
    >knowledge not known by the church was considered wrong, or evil.
     
    That might be a little simplistic.  Actually, there was "new knowledge"
    throughout the Medieval period, though much of it rested with the
    clergy.  The development of the cam, for example, was a Medieval
    invention, plus water-powered bellows, smithing hammer, and the
    like.  The "formalistic" knowledge (e.g., rhetoric) was salvaged
    scraps from the classical period, and monastaries of the period
    were always looking for new material.
    
    The last burning of the library at Alexandria was not done by
    Christians, but under the command of a Moslewm general who indicated
    that if the wordfs of the library's books were not in the Koran,
    they were wrong; and if they were, they were superfluous (since
    the Koran existed); in either case, the library should be burned,
    and so it was.          
    
    I tend to get a bit weary of "pop history" views of the process
    within Western Europe.  It happened that the Roman Empire fell due
    to internal weaknesses (coreruption, etc.) that made it easy prey
    for the less civilized (and _much_ less educated) Germanic tribes
    overran parts of the empire (well, the Western Empire -- the Eastern
    held out for some time longer; it wasn't until the fall of
    Constantinople that the Roman experiment came to a _complete_ close).
    The _only_ repositories of knowledge in Western Europe were the
    monastaries, and some of them kept the trust quite well.  Naturally,
    there was a monastic Christian bias to what was circulated most
    widely, but much Classical literature, some undeniably Pagan, was
    saved [_as literature_].  Indeed, the reason the "Humanities" courses
    taught in some colleges and universities are primarily Graeco-Roman
    is because of their association with the religious orders through
    the dark time of Europe.  [Point of trivia:  the reason that graduation
    clothes in colleges are black robes originated with the earliest
    schools, which either were run by or were closely associated with
    churches.  Every undergraduate was, at least administratively, a
    special class of mild clergy, and the graduation robe was considered
    a clerical gown.  This is also why the degrees from some of the
    oldest and most prestegious universities are written in Latin, the
    "language of the Church."]
    
    The Medieval Christian church may havbe made some mistakes, but
    it was hardly the impediment to progress it's oftebn painted.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

          <<< REGENT::SYS$SYSDEVICE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]RELIGION.NOTE;1 >>>
                            -< Religion Conference >-
================================================================================
Note 168.7              Boulder Book Burners Bite Bullet                  7 of 7
NEXUS::MORGAN "Human Reality Engineering, Inc."      44 lines  21-MAR-1988 22:50
             -< If You're Happy and You Know It, Burn a Witch... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    This is an account off another net by a person who was there...
     
Leigh Ann,
 Once upon a time, in a land far, far away (called Boulder), a group of
fundies decided to hold a book burning; and Lo and behold, the MEDIA found out
(the fundies told them). This caused a great outrage among the people of this
distant land and among some folks in the Denver area too. As the time of the
burning approached, many groups (big, small, formal, informal, organized,
and/or disorganized) decided to react. (I was part of one of these patriotic
groups.)  The "Satanic" books were gathered. These included the Koran and the
Talmud along with an assortment of New-Age and Pagan books.
 The Appointed time came (about one Moon ago). People showed up with copies of
the first amendment. People showed up with protest signs. One group, the
"Clannettes" I believe they were called, showed up as KKK chearleaders and did
pseudo-fundie cheers. One fellow named Doug (A [polar] bear of a man who was
camped near you last August, running security) showed up with a large American
flag on a stout pole. When the fundies called for ministers who wished to join
them on the podium, Doug (U.L.C. credentials in hand) joined them at the
podium. That was NOT what they had in mind!
 As they tried to preach at the crowd, they were met with "Don't Burn
Books!!", "Freedom!", and other protest chants. They were met with waving
signs. They were met with jeering crowds (They were badly outnumbered) They
were met with a large man carrying a large flag who was at the podium
(remember him?) shouting in their faces. They were met with a man who lay
across the books that they had planned to burn. As they tried to exorcise him,
they were speaking in tounges (sounds like a bad job of channeling to me B-),
and at least one counter-spell was audible if you were in the right part of
the crowd (actually it was more toward the left rear portion of the crowd).
Eventually they lit their barbeque - a transparent attempt to circumvent
Boulder's open burning ordinance - and part of the crowd spilled it on the
ground. They got out their second "barbie" and managed to get 3 or 4 books on
it before someone put it out with a fire extinguisher. They were NOT happy!
 After burning only these pittifully few books, they invited the press inside
for a press conference. A number of protesters were heard to say things like
"Oh, wait a minute, I brought my press card with me didn't I!" (often with an
evil sounding chuckle) and "D*** it, I left my press card at home!!!!" In the
space of the next half-hour or so, a Christian magician and several of her &
my pagan friends had picked up the trash that had been left lying around.
 Does that answer your question, Leigh Ann?
 B*B
 Dragonfriend
 P.S. Doug made all of the local news broadcasts and both daily papers for his
part in the anti-burning protest. R.A.A.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Here is the Clannettes cheer...
    
    	If your happy and you know it Burn a Witch. Rah, Rah,
    	If your happy and you know it Burn a Witch. Rah, Rah,
    
    	If your happy and you know it,
    	Then you really outta' show it,
    
    	If your happy and you know it Burn a Witch. Rah, Rah.
    

    There is another way of looking at this...
    
    I've heard a claim that these books were donated to these preachers
    by people who wanted these things (New Age, Occult, Witchcraft,
    etc.) out of their lives.  In essence, they were doing a ritual
    to rid themselves of it.  Then, a group of rowdies came along and
    prevented them from completing their ritual, and stole the books.
    
    If a Pagan ritual had been similarly disrupted by a group of
    Fundamentalist Christians, who believed they were preventing the
    Pagans from bringing the devil into the world, we would be very
    up-in-arms.
    
    If Pagans expect tolerance from others, we must be tolerant to
    others - even those whose practices we find abhorrent (I personally
    find the practice of burning *any* books abhorrent).
    
    Elizabeth

    Reply to .9, Betty,
    
    On the other hand the fundies advertized their ritual before hand. They
    called up local television stations and invited them down for the
    event. Had they done so privately, without media coverage, on their own
    property quietly, nothing would have happened but that their own magic
    would affect them; transforming the fundies even further along their
    path.
    
    The main purpose of magic is self transformation. An attempt to
    transform the public at large, with the public unaware of what was
    happening to them, without the publics express permission, is black
    magic. Fundies are steeped in this and they don't even know it. (Let's
    all pray for the apostate Mikie?) The psychic force of thousands
    would have an affect if I/we didn't take precautions to ground such
    activity before hand.
    
    As such they invited dissent, which they wanted anyway, so why
    dissappoint them.
    
    The fundies wanted to make a statement, which they did, that denegrated
    the occult, new age and pagan communities. I think the response was
    totally justified. It will probably be sometime before another fundie
    church in Boulder tries that little trick again.
    
    Now, to amplify the obvious, if they had burned their books, on their
    grills, in private, transforming themselves, the willing, no one would
    be justified in interfering. Such was not the case. The general
    public, unaware, was attacked throuh magical and mundane means.
                                

    RE: .10
    
    I'm with Elizabeth on this one, Mikie.  The New Agers had a right
    to *peaceful* protest, but no right to take books that were not
    theirs to take.  Books are sacred objects in our culture, and people
    get upset at seeing them burned.  But people have the right to burn
    their own books (but for the air pollution it causes).  Peace has
    never been served by violent protest...even mildly violent protest.
    
    John M.

    Reply to .11, John,
    
    The issue has nothing to do with books really. When one thinks about it
    one finds that the real issue, buried under the passion and rhetoric of
    the moment, is that a power-over situation was being used to control
    the public at large.  Why else was the media invited?
    
    Priests and pastors are respected members of a community. They have
    power over individuals of the community. Through the media the pastor
    says to the individual "Look at me, LOOK AT ME! I'm an important
    person. I'm a man of God. I'm burning this occult book because I want
    you to burn your occult book too. If you don't do what I want you too,
    what all these other people who support me want you too, you'll suffer.
    You'll be tainted, cast out, in danger, left out."
    
    In Starhawks latest book _Truth_or_Dare_, she talks about power-over,
    partiarchal society, rebellion and resistence. The whole book is
    about liberation psychology. Specifically the liberation of the
    indivudual to resist and create a new society.
    
    Now in our society power and rebellion are clearly defined. We
    experience the power of the power-over and we respond in the manner
    the power-over structure has previously defined. Whether it's
    compliance or rebellion a predetermined route of action has been
    assigned.
    
    The books really didn't matter and still don't. They could have been
    burned, stolen, left alone, etc. Boulder is a college town. There are
    many 10s of thousands of books there. The message delievered to the
    public is what was being contested. I really don't know that the
    fundies didn't abandon the books while caught in the heat of the moment.
    Did they forget/abandon about the books when the *real* issue was being
    contested? I don't know. Did the protestors pick them up when the issue
    changed? I don't know. I would have picked up a book if I thought the
    previous owner didn't want it and was going to make no effort to
    retrieve it for whatever ends. 
    
    The real issue was/is who is going to control the public's mind. Will
    it be those who want to limit our options or will it be those who
    expand our horizions. Now while couch potatoes are fairly inactive
    they still have money to contribute to contractive causes. I vote for
    the expanders and against the contractors. I'm willing to take
    responsibility for creating an enviroment that nurtures expansion. Let
    the bench warmers warm the bench. I'm out to create a new corner of my
    world. A healthy, expansive, aware corner. 
    
    Starhawk said that creation is the ultimate act of resistence.
    Something was created during that event. I refuse to pass judgement
    upon it. If it happens again and I can make it, I'll be there.
    
    What has not been said is that Boulder is very progressive. In fact
    Boulder is a hot bed of radical feminism, paganism, socialism,
    intellectualism, secularism, you name it... A book burning is a slap in
    the face for them, a contractive step backwards to the dark ages. 
    
    While theft of personal property is not ethical, loud, active protest
    is totally justified when dealing with power-overs. The trick is in not
    falling into the preprogrammed traps the power-over structure has
    designed into rebellion. No one was slaped, no one was hurt. I'm not
    sure what you mean by mildly violent. If I have a loud disagreement
    with you is that mildly violent? I think not.
                                         

    A couple clarifications on .12,
    
    Book burnings are fun to protest. No one gets hurt or thrown in
    jail.
    
    There are more serious issues in life that have to be faced. Nuclear
    proliferation, nuclear weapons, ecoside, troops in Hondrus, death
    with integrity, aparthide, racism, creating a responsible society
    through responsible investiment. In short, creating a better world
    for all living creatures. For these our bodies will have to be put
    upon the line. Otherwise we all lose, especially those that follow.
    The responsibility is ours and the responsibility is now.
    
    If a little book burning protest bothers someone, they might as
    well check out now. There is much work to be done. We're in an awful
    mess, and it's time to clean up our house.               
    
    The second item is that we must resist in a way that doesn't fall
    into the traps set by those in power. One way to do that is through
    creating a better mental enviroment. Education, debate, peaceful
    controntation are vital. Creation is the ultimate act of resistence.

RE: .12 (Mikie)

    > Through the media the pastor says to the individual "Look at me, LOOK
    AT ME! I'm an important person. I'm a man of God. I'm burning this
    occult book because I want you to burn your occult book too.  < 

Trust me, followers of this pastor are not going to own occult books in
the first place.  Those who do not follow him and read such books are certainly
not going to torch their libraries.  If this man thinks pagans are going
straight to hell, then he has a right to tell the world. 


    > The real issue was/is who is going to control the public's mind. Will
    it be those who want to limit our options or will it be those who
    expand our horizions.  < 

How about letting the public control their own minds?

    
    > Starhawk said that creation is the ultimate act of resistance.
    Something was created during that event. I refuse to pass judgment upon
    it.  < 

Ah, but you are quick to pass judgment on the book burners!



    >  What has not been said is that Boulder is very progressive. In fact
    Boulder is a hot bed of radical feminism, paganism, socialism,
    intellectualism, secularism, you name it... A book burning is a slap in
    the face for them, a contractive step backwards to the dark ages. < 


I couldn't agree with you more.  But I would also say that the New Agers
played right into the good reverend's hands.  Doubtless he received far
more publicity than he would have if he'd been ignored. 
    
    
    > While theft of personal property is not ethical, loud, active protest
    is totally justified when dealing with power-overs. The trick is in not
    falling into the preprogrammed traps the power-over structure has
    designed into rebellion. No one was slaped, no one was hurt. I'm not
    sure what you mean by mildly violent. < 


The following are from the report in the base note:
 
> More books were stolen than burned last night at a fundamentalist
> rally in Boulder that disintegrated into a shouting match between
> more than 250 supporters and protesters.
 
> However, all but three of the books were pilfered by a throng of
> poster-carrying, slogan-chanting protesters who swiped the books
> from a pile on the ground outside the church where Gordon and Day
> were attempting to speak to the rowdy dissenters.
 
> "They stole them right out from under us," Gordon said after a
> circuslike ceremony.
 
> It wasn't long after Gordon had the books burning in a modified barbecue
> grill that protesters doused the flames with a fire extinguisher and 
> overturned the smoldering grill.
 
> Doug Johnson of Denver took the evening's honors for most visible
> and vocal protester.  Armed with an American flag, Johnson heckled
> Day and Gordon from a distance of about 2 feet.  


Shouting at somebody from two feet away isn't protest, its harassment. 
Clearly, the protesters had no right to take the books or overturn the
grill.  Or were they just being "creative?"

Let's hope the next protest is more peaceful.

John M.
                                                                  

	While I look on book burning with contempt, I can find little to
recommend the actions of the protesters in this case.

	Mickie?, you've made the assertion that the burners were attempting
black magik by trying to direct the public's will.  While that may or may not
have been the objective, I doubt it would have had much effect.  With no
protest, or even a very reserved protest, the incident would have gotten
far less media coverage.  In the main, the people who already agree with
the burners would have been happy that 'something is being done', people who
are opposed (probably in the majority, if your description of the character
of boulder is correct) would look askance on the incident, and people who
didn't care either way would continue not to care.  You then argue that the
point of the protest was change the message, not stop it, thereby seeing that
it was the protesters, not the burners who influenced 'the public mind.'  How
does this make the magik of the protesters to be any less black?

	As it stands, the protesters have lent the burners power, for if they
weren't important, why was it necessary to stop them.  The protesters have 
also insured that the burners got far more media coverage than they otherwise
would have.  I would also tend to suspect that at least some people will look
at the actions of the protesters and classify them as 'wrong', and therefore
wonder if maybe there isn't some truth to the burners' assertion that these
books are an 'evil' influence.

Mark

re; < Note 663.14 by DECWET::MITCHELL "Let's call 'em sea monkeys!" >

>RE: .12 (Mikie)
>
>    > Through the media the pastor says to the individual "Look at me, LOOK
>    AT ME! I'm an important person. I'm a man of God. I'm burning this
>    occult book because I want you to burn your occult book too.  < 
>
>Trust me, followers of this pastor are not going to own occult books in
>the first place.  Those who do not follow him and read such books are certainly
>not going to torch their libraries.  If this man thinks pagans are going
>straight to hell, then he has a right to tell the world. 

	But the pastor speaks to many more individuals, via the media, than
	he would have if he were only addressing his congregation.  The people
	about whom we might have concern, are those who have yet to decide as
	to whether or not they wish to pursue education on occult matters.
	These people may be more vulnerable to stimulus.

	Having been in the media myself, I would say that there was a better
	way for those who opposed the burning, to handle themselves.  Physical
	action (i.e., overturning the "modified barbeque") and loud taunts
	serve to make the opposition look bad; oftentimes, such abrasive
	actions also serve to lend to the cause of the other side.  I would
	suggest that, if such an event is to happen again, those who oppose
	it should attend calmly, quietly, and speak directly to the camera
	crews of TV stations and directly into the microphone of the radio
	station's tape recorder to further their cause.  They should present
	logical, rational, calm arguments as to why their group is opposed
	to the book burning, and remember to mention the positive attitudes
	of whatever group/school of thought they wish to represent.

>    > The real issue was/is who is going to control the public's mind. Will
>    it be those who want to limit our options or will it be those who
>    expand our horizions.  < 
>
>How about letting the public control their own minds?

	Nice ideal, John; however, in reality, there are many who seek to
	follow, rather than lead.  When the leaders put a bias on information;
	when the leaders conveniently omit pieces of the truth; when the 
	leaders act from fear and try to win others to their viewpoint through
	dishonest means (which include, but are not limited to, the above),
	then the masses-who-follow are being misled.  The question then 
	becomes one of, do you really want followers who follow blindly, or
	followers who will work to know what it is they say they believe?
	I am of the opinion that, if one chooses to have followers of the
	latter type, one will notice that one doesn't have as many followers.
    

>...I would also say that the New Agers
>played right into the good reverend's hands.  Doubtless he received far
>more publicity than he would have if he'd been ignored. 

	Sad, but true.  One can even see in NOTES files how many people
	get upset when a disagreement becomes excited.  I tend to think
	of it in positive terms (the natural progression of certain
	issues) *to a point*, but many are simply turned off by certain 
	types of aggression, and may change their opinions if they see too 
	much of it in any one argument.    
    
>    > While theft of personal property is not ethical, loud, active protest
>    is totally justified when dealing with power-overs. The trick is in not
>    falling into the preprogrammed traps the power-over structure has
>    designed into rebellion. No one was slaped, no one was hurt. I'm not
>    sure what you mean by mildly violent. < 

	I think that having the media present for what was to become a
	shouting match with a little physical action *was* part of the
	pre-programmed trap.  Seems to me that the Revs were inviting the
	burning to become what it was.

>> More books were stolen than burned last night at a fundamentalist
>> rally in Boulder that disintegrated into a shouting match between
>> more than 250 supporters and protesters.
> 
>> However, all but three of the books were pilfered by a throng of
>> poster-carrying, slogan-chanting protesters who swiped the books
>> from a pile on the ground outside the church where Gordon and Day
>> were attempting to speak to the rowdy dissenters.

	Remember the 60's...the loud nature and physical action of a protest
	only served to make the Establishment stronger in its opinions.  They
	*wanted* the protestors to look like "a bunch of hooligans".
 
>> "They stole them right out from under us," Gordon said after a
>> circuslike ceremony.

	Pre-planned on Gordon's part?? 

> Doug Johnson of Denver took the evening's honors for most visible
> and vocal protester.  Armed with an American flag, Johnson heckled
> Day and Gordon from a distance of about 2 feet.  

	Very 60's-remniscent.

>Shouting at somebody from two feet away isn't protest, its harassment. 
>Clearly, the protesters had no right to take the books or overturn the
>grill.  Or were they just being "creative?"

	And...the louder and more aggressively you cry, the less likely
	is the other side to listen.

	I hope that, if there is another such protest, that those upholding
	the opposing viewpoint will calmly and clearly state their views to
	the media.

 
Reply to .14, John,
 
>Trust me, followers of this pastor are not going to own occult books in the
>first place.  Those who do not follow him and read such books are certainly
>not going to torch their libraries.  If this man thinks pagans are going
>straight to hell, then he has a right to tell the world.
 
     Then where did the followers get the books in the first place? The
     library? I don't think so. I can't see Pentacostals stealing books
     from the library. They either had the books, bought the books or
     had friends give them the books. This is not a main point anyway.
 
     And if Pagans think this man is sick and confused then we have the
     right to say so and publicly. We have the right to say so to his
     face. We have right to counter his sick influence upon the public.
 
>How about letting the public control their own minds?
 
     This is a delicate point and one that I have a hard time
     countering myself. My mind is changing though. I'm beginning to
     think that those who are responsible will act to whatever ends.
     Someone will act. It is notable that the protestors didn't really
     care until the book burning went public. I don't see them having
     anti-Pentacostal protests now. They simply responded to a sicking
     threat.
 
     There is nothing new under the sun. We either actively create a
     positive, pluaristic society or we suffer the consequences. If one
     wants to sit upon the bench they have no right to complain when
     something comes along they don't like. They do, however, have the
     right to get the hell off the bench and do something.  These
     protestors wern't warming the bench, they weere doing something.
 
     Now while armchair philosophers have the ability to critize the
     actions of the protestors their opinion is of no real consequence.
     Who is this file has done any civil disobedience actions? I have.
     Who has protested and demonstrated against an unjust cause? I have.
     Let them speak out. I want to hear what they have to say and what
     they have experienced, their criticism and suggestions.
    
    > Starhawk said that creation is the ultimate act of resistance.
    Something was created during that event. I refuse to pass judgment upon
    it.  < 
 
>Ah, but you are quick to pass judgment on the book burners!
 
    And you seem ready and able to criticize and judge meat eaters. You
    do that because you feel it is necessary. You may be right. One
    doesn't look at the open sore on their leg and say "This is good."
    One finds a problem and offers a solution. what solution are your
    offering?
 
    >  What has not been said is that Boulder is very progressive. In fact
    Boulder is a hot bed of radical feminism, paganism, socialism,
    intellectualism, secularism, you name it... A book burning is a slap in
    the face for them, a contractive step backwards to the dark ages. < 
 
>I couldn't agree with you more.  But I would also say that the New Agers
>played right into the good reverend's hands.  Doubtless he received far
>more publicity than he would have if he'd been ignored.
 
     Here we broach the highly debatable topic of what is useful and who
     uses who. I don't think the protestors fell into his hands, I think
     he brought upon himself a little too much. His wife was somewhat in
     shock. What will happen is that the pentacostals will think they
     are being persecuted. They brought the socalled persecution upon
     themselves.
 
     If the Good Reverend had done his thing on television, unopposed
     he would have made a unchallenged statement to the public. He
     didn't get clear air time. His screwball message was confronted
     with American values, values that demand action in the face of a
     preceived evil. I don't see many actors in society, I see actees.
    
    > While theft of personal property is not ethical, loud, active protest
    is totally justified when dealing with power-overs. The trick is in not
    falling into the preprogrammed traps the power-over structure has
    designed into rebellion. No one was slaped, no one was hurt. I'm not
    sure what you mean by mildly violent. < 
 
>Shouting at somebody from two feet away isn't protest, its harassment.
>Clearly, the protesters had no right to take the books or overturn the
>grill.  Or were they just being "creative?"
 
>Let's hope the next protest is more peaceful.
>
>John M.
 
Were you there, did you respond to a threat, or are you an armchair
philosopher?
 
Let's get something straight. Those Book Burning A$$holes in Boulder are
ignorant bigots. That pisses me off. And any attitude that lets those
bigots get off scot free pisses me off too.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to .15, Elkof,
 
>        Mickie?, you've made the assertion that the burners were
>attempting black magik by trying to direct the public's will.  While
>that may or may not have been the objective, I doubt it would have had
>much effect.  With no protest, or even a very reserved protest, the
>incident would have gotten far less media coverage.  In the main, the
>people who already agree with the burners would have been happy that
>'something is being done', people who are opposed (probably in the
>majority, if your description of the character of boulder is correct)
>would look askance on the incident, and people who didn't care either
>way would continue not to care.  You then argue that the point of the
>protest was change the message, not stop it, thereby seeing that it was
>the protesters, not the burners who influenced 'the public mind.'  How
>does this make the magik of the protesters to be any less black?
 
     Please, it's Mikie? B^) This seems to me to be typical of a certain
     attitude that says, "oh, just ignore it, it will go away." I get
     your message. Let's say that one message was that new age, magic,
     reincarnation, various forms of religion are of the devil and
     against God's Divine Will. The other message was that exposure to
     other belief systems, other philosophies, other ways of thinking is
     healthy. Along with that message was the message that said it is ok
     to express your anger, it's ok to do something about your life,
     it's ok to be responsible, it's ok to create a new attitude.
 
     The point of the protest was to expose and oppose the sickness
     until it shutup or got well. It is a sick mind that says my way is
     the only way, do what I say or God will burn you in Hell.
 
     In my writing I tend to confuse the reader by not saying that I
     think that psychology is the new WitchCraft. Political psychology,
     social psychology and religious psychology are tools used to
     control people. Regular, everyday ole' WitchCraft, along with many
     other belief systems, teaches the initiate to deal with
     antagonistic psychological influences, internal and external.
 
     Sadly the standard issue couch potatoe is not aware of what is
     being used upon them. The best nonviolent way to handle that
     situation is to expose the sickness. The fundies are the ones who
     initiated the protest. Had they attempted the ritual privately,
     there would have been no protest.
 
>        As it stands, the protesters have lent the burners power, for if
>they weren't important, why was it necessary to stop them.  The
>protesters have also insured that the burners got far more media
>coverage than they otherwise would have.  I would also tend to suspect
>that at least some people will look at the actions of the protesters and
>classify them as 'wrong', and therefore wonder if maybe there isn't some
>truth to the burners' assertion that these books are an 'evil'
>influence.
 
>Mark
 
     There is a quaint mind mush that says that if we all get together
     and meditate hard enough all the problems of the world will go
     away. Such is not the case. Power is a commodity. Power will be
     used to whatever ends. We either act together in a positive,
     creative power-with situation, (as opposed to power-over) or the
     power-overs will have their way with us. Sooner or latter we will
     be a political threat. They will take action action sooner or
     latter. Just ask Sun Young Moon.

    
    Mikie,
    
    For what it's worth - I wish you'd been there when 'they' were
    destroying the library at Alexandria (hope that's right....it has
    been a while.....).
    
    Cindy