Thursday, 22 September, 2005

1. By . Comment posted 22-Sep-2005 @08:14pm:

   Seems to me that an all-powerful god wouldn't need such help.
2. By . Comment posted 22-Sep-2005 @08:16pm:

   I think these books are the work of Satan. For some reason, God is all-powerful -- except when it comes to Satan. Kind of like Superman and Kryptonite, I think.
3. By cobra427. Comment posted 22-Sep-2005 @09:14pm:

   can i throw in the dragons (other half) doris day and hermans hermits cd's - i'm sick of waking up to them.
   
   I will throw on my copy of the smurf song on vinyl.. that for some reason my mom is keeping hold of from when i was a kid.
4. By Annette Makinitupasigo. Comment posted 22-Sep-2005 @09:22pm:

   I was going to participate by reading a banned book, but I do not find a list of banned books on the website. They sell a banned books list for $50.
   
   There's a Henry Miller book here on my shelf. It'll surely do.
5. By Barry. Comment posted 22-Sep-2005 @09:29pm:

   Perhaps the book burners are Satan worshipers incognito.
6. By . Comment posted 22-Sep-2005 @11:34pm:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banned_books
   
   
   List of banned books.
7. By Dave (TDC). Comment posted 23-Sep-2005 @04:38am:

   Don't ask me why but in my gut I feel that burning books is an evil act. It has been said that "where they burn books, they will soon burn people"
8. By . Comment posted 23-Sep-2005 @04:47am:

   I purchased at least 61 of those books for my kids library at home. That does not include my books. Ha ha! I cannot believe some of the books on that list. Dr Seuss? Shakespeare? Ironic that Fahrenheit 451 is there. I have been known to pay $5 bribes to kids for reading "A Day No Pigs Would Die" on the theory that kids who usually do not like to read would be "hooked on reading" by this short but very good book.
   
   I think it might be better used as "must read" list.
9. By Cosmos. Comment posted 23-Sep-2005 @04:56am:

   I understand that J-Walk's Excel books were in the burning pile. Can't have this kind of knowledge falling into the hands of the innocent children.
10. By . Comment posted 23-Sep-2005 @05:33am:

    The Handmaid's Tale is on that list. I think we should have a serious conversation with Gee...
11. By Beans. Comment posted 23-Sep-2005 @06:05am:

    Where's Waldo?
    
    I can't believe it: "The reason usually given for challenging or banning the book is that one of its pictures features a topless woman." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where's_Waldo?#Censorship
    
    So,
    
    Don’t visit the Art Institute you may encounter paintings of naked people...please keep the kids away from the karma sutra exhibit.
    
    To me, it’s not the question of who decides what’s banned, it’s, who allowed the booked to be banned and why.
12. By fancypants. Comment posted 23-Sep-2005 @06:12am:

    I support any individual or group's right to burn books...or burn flags...or burn draft cards. That, I feel is a valid way to express one's beliefs. However, I do not support a government telling us what can't be read.
    My favorite banned book? Ulysses by James Joyce.
13. By . Comment posted 23-Sep-2005 @06:25am:

    Mrs. ~Q~ is a professor of English. One of her favorite shirts reads: "I read banned books"
14. By fancypants. Comment posted 23-Sep-2005 @06:42am:

    J-Walk, the thing about God banning the books is a little misleading. A number of books are banned because they aren't Politically Correct. Not that they are dirty.
    Also, as a devout believer, I don't think that God is responsible for everything in my life. That is my job. It's a little intellectually unfair for you to mis-represent religious belief systems and then mock them based on your mis-representation...isn't it ? BTW, I am not a fundamentalist, but rather an orthodox Roman Catholic. There is a huge difference in the way religion is approached between the two.
15. By Mean Jean. Comment posted 23-Sep-2005 @07:09am:

    Wendy! You're right. I had you on my mind because "A Day No Pigs Would Die" is an old-time personal fav of mine.
    
    I can't think of 3 things at once it just wads up.
16. By Toad. Comment posted 23-Sep-2005 @07:11am:

    So, Wendy!, you'll pay me $5 to read A Day No Pigs Would Die? Normally, I would avoid such a book, because it sounds like it promotes anti-bacon sentiments. But, $5 is $5. Sign me up.
17. By Daniel. Comment posted 23-Sep-2005 @07:22am:

    The key phrase here is books which "THEY" have judged offensive to God.
    
    Who died and made them God and thus able to judge what might offend and what might not?
18. By Mean Jean. Comment posted 23-Sep-2005 @07:34am:

    Toad, you can relax. I read that book, cried like a baby and I still firmly believe that bacon is the reason The Flying Spaghetti Monster made pigs. YUMMY. Here in North Carolina we do pig-picking. That's when you KNOW you are a carnivore.
19. By . Comment posted 23-Sep-2005 @08:00am:

    The list of banned books is interesting. It doesn't seem to have so much to do with religion as perceived societal taboos. Frankenstein for instance has an overriding theme of the majesty of God and the imperfection of human beings. Yet it is on the banned list probably because somebody was once shocked by the murders in it. Once again, the more specific and easy target may be religion but the more difficult and constantly moving mark is ignorance.
20. By gt. Comment posted 23-Sep-2005 @08:48am:

    Am I seeing things? Does the flame in the accompanied photo not resemble a stallion-riding-caped-sword-raised knight rising from the burning books to meet the challenge?
21. By . Comment posted 23-Sep-2005 @08:48am:

    what is an orthodox roman catholic?
22. By Beans. Comment posted 23-Sep-2005 @09:03am:

    Define: Un-Orthodox Roman Catholic.
23. By fancypants. Comment posted 23-Sep-2005 @09:49am:

    It is the way one practices their faith. Many Roman Catholics do not abide by the regulations of the Church. It doesn't signify a different branch of Catholicism, merely the approach one takes towards it.
    BEEGEE, great observation, it is ignorance against which the gods contend in vain.
    BEANS, an un-Orthodox Roman Catholic would be someone born into a Catholic family, but doesn't adhere to any of the teachings of the Church.
24. By . Comment posted 23-Sep-2005 @10:01am:

    an un-Orthodox Roman Catholic would be someone born into a Catholic family, but doesn't adhere to any of the teachings of the Church.
    
    Huh? So a child automatically takes on the religion of their parents as if it's passed on in their genes?
25. By fancypants. Comment posted 23-Sep-2005 @10:34am:

    Not in their genes J-Walk. It's kind of like politics. Children often adopt a belief system because it is what their parents subsribe to. It's not that they really believe in it, it's just that they were raised that way. They would go through the motions of going to church, but just not really invest any belief in it.
    Is that any clearer?
26. By . Comment posted 23-Sep-2005 @11:05am:

    Who gave fancypants the wedgie? He ought to hang with Kirk Cameron.
    The only difference between fundamentalism and Roman Catholic orthodoxy is that fundamentalism was spawned by intolerant orthodox Roman Catholics. (See the history of the Inquisition)
27. By . Comment posted 23-Sep-2005 @11:06am:

    hmmmmm..... so if i practice birth control ??
28. By Park Ave.. Comment posted 23-Sep-2005 @11:54am:

    This has nothing to do with religion. It is a surreptitious ploy by publishers to incite rabble-rousers to impel the barely literate to acquire books to burn and burn them. The answer to many enigmas in modern times is who is making the money?
    
    John, as an author, would you be willing to sell books to people who don't read them, criticize the content and then burn them?
29. By . Comment posted 23-Sep-2005 @11:57am:

    John, as an author, would you be willing to sell books to people who don't read them, criticize the content and then burn them?
    
    Not only would I be willing, I encourage it!
30. By sasha. Comment posted 23-Sep-2005 @12:00pm:

    You could do it as a promo:
    
    Free Bag of Marshmallows With Every Purchase!
31. By . Comment posted 23-Sep-2005 @01:31pm:

    gt, I don't see the knight and the sword. I see a cowboy on a horse rising up out of the flames to amble off into the black night.
32. By fancypants. Comment posted 23-Sep-2005 @02:26pm:

    aws3100: sorry you think I've got a wedgie. Your history must be different than mine. Fundamentalism developed well after the inquisiton. Also, fundamentalists believe in a literal view of the bible, that the bible is the only source of religious doctrine. But, please don't take me as a final source on what fundamentalism is. I am not fundamentalist, so I would not be the one to represent it. However, that is how the philosophy differs from Roman Catholicism. I feel better now that my underpants are un-wedged.
33. By Andie. Comment posted 23-Sep-2005 @04:36pm:

    Judaism believes that religion is passed through the maternal blood line. Because my mother was a Jew (she converted to become a Protestant when I was baptized at the age of about 6 months) I would be accepted in Israel as a Jew regardless of the fact that the only connection to the Jewish religion that I have had beside my mother's origin was my first marriage.
34. By slem. Comment posted 25-Sep-2005 @07:53pm:

    The shape of the fire's flame is that of a pale horse, with a figure of death as rider.

Original content © 2010, John Walkenbach