Well put! Once I was going past one of those rather fancy shmancy bar-clothes stores (Limited or Express, can never keep them separate in my memory) and I noticed a scantily clad mannequin sporting a crucifix. I went in the store and explained how disrespectful it was to have a crucifix hanging between two glittery, nippled plastic breasts. They dismissed me and said it was a corporate decision.

So I made a corporate decision. I took every single crucific necklace, including the one on Ol’ Skanky, and hid them deep under stacks of unpopular jeans. Nobody who wanted to wear a crucifix respectfully would have bought it there, so I didn’t feel too bad about making it so that the necklaces wouldn’t be found until they had been marked down to $.99.

Another thing that shouldn’t exist? School picture day for teachers. Looking good at work just isn’t my thing.

Once I bought a V.C. Andrews book that glorifies incest for 25 cents at a thrift store and explained to the clerk I was buying it to throw it away because it glorified incest.  She got very hostile.

I know this isn’t the kind of commment you were asking for, but I have to say this. That Pullman quote gave me an uncharitable desire to punch his neotheophobe face. It’s bad enough to write anti-Christian tracts with a delicate coating of false Faery, and bad enough to do it in diabolical mockery of C. S. Lewis, but to call Tolkien TRIVIAL?!
By what standards is Tolkien “trivial”? He’s probably the most influential writer of the past eighty years. Not that influential automatically equals good, but I fail to see how it could possibly be described as “trivial”. He’s not trivial, if only because no fantasy book can be written now that has not been influenced by him in one way or another.

In other words: good for you, Mrs Simcha! You’re obviously training your children the right way. My favorite line:
“On the other hand, one essential way to make them ready is to instill a deep, visceral, emotional loyalty to the ideas which are true (such as:  there is a God, the Church is not evil or repressive, and Tolkein could kick Philip Pullman’s bony atheist hinder without even putting his pipe down).”

You know you are going to get flamed by Pullman fans.

I once wrote a scathing review of his first book and it took only two days before an outrageously outraged teenage atheist found it necessary to put me in my place.  And no one even knew my blog existed.

That being said, I have read Philip Pullman.  And I’m pretty open-minded about literature.  I even found some good points in Twilight.  <ducks and covers>

But reading Pullman was like wading through sewage.  I failed to find any redeeming value (even his world-building sucked).  I applaud your kids’ actions.  Among other common themes: parents are evil, organized religion is evil, adults who are not witches or gypsies hate children and want to seem them exploited, and the “romance” in the book is between two thirteen year olds (though the ages aren’t really clear; the girl might be eleven) who sleep in each other’s arms.  That last part is a direct quote.

Plus, through-out the book, it felt like the author was present and actively beating you over the head with his moral code. The lack of subtlety gave me a headache.

I agree that some things should not exist.

If it’s left as free public property, then I figure that I can trash it if it will bring harm.  For example, whenever I see a Watchtower publication I put it in the garbage.  I figure it’s the least I can do, it was left there for someone to choose to do something about after all (of course, the person leaving it is hoping that someone will choose to read it).  As far as your convenience store example though, that one I just don’t know.  I would like to think that I would talk to my boss, try to explain that the key chains are harmful.  Make my position known, and pray.  I wouldn’t throw them out unless I bought them first.

My (future) husband and I went to a Dave Matthews concert in college which had a table from Planned Parenthood set up with buckets of free condoms.  After the concert, we each took armfuls of the condoms and threw them away.  The group of friends we were with seemed noticeably uncomfortable watching us, but what good does a condom promote?

When I worked for a big box retailers in High School as a shelf stocker I would throw all the condoms in the restock bin which meant instead of being out on the selves that day they would go to the back room for the day until they were sorted. I would have been fired for throwing them away so i didn’t but I figured at least I could keep them off the store floor one day at a time by sending them to the store room.

Is it also bad that I take questionable library books, “Conversations w/ God”, and hide them so no one will ever find them?

I totally threw away every Dan Brown book and audio CD I could find when working at the parish White Elephant sale a few years ago.  It was deeply disturbing to see how many were donated, but deeply satisfying to toss them in the dumpster, where they belonged.

I doubt anyone else would have taken Pullman for free, so it’s unlikely you were depriving anyone of the experience of weighing the arguments and carefully reaching the proper theological conclusions.  Plus it was yours for the taking, to do with as you pleased. But I don’t think destruction of someone else’s property can be justified by comparing it to bombs unless it is something that is intended to kill you instantly without giving you the opportunity to deny yourself the experience. And what’s the difference between stealing for a good cause and lying for one?

Here’s something I used to do and am thinking of starting again. In the checkout line—taking Cosmo or similar magazines and tucking them behind Martha Stewart. Or putting a Martha in front of Cosmo. I know that someone probably comes around each day and puts everything back, but the hope is that an occasional sale will be lost as a result of my actions.

There is no possible way that it could do good, and if you leave it be, it will certainly do someone serious harm.

This is the line you use to equate disposing of pornographic keychains with disposing of a ‘found’ bomb.

Isn’t the giant difference less about who owns the thing in question, and more to do with the fact that the bomb can detonate and kill people?

Like everyone here, I have bought books and such at yard sales, the local Goodwill, etc. with the sole purpose of burning them. 

I consider our campaign a bit of Catholic Litter Control - it our little way of cleaning up the planet.  If people can complain about the trash on the side of the road and encourage us to pick it up and discard it properly - I will do the same with the trash I find on store shelves and yard sale tables.

I also buy religious articles - but those I respectively bury or seek to find them a good home.  As a result I have quite a few plastic Jesus’ and ugly pictures but I don’t like seeing them in a store where someone who agrees w/ Pullman might do something less than kind.

I have read the Phil Pullman series and did not find it amazing, enlightening or entertaining as the blurbs on each jacket told me.  I read them because my children love fantasy and wanted to read something new.  I’d hoped to be able to present them with a new series and was willing to go through it to see if it ever got better.  It didn’t. 

Pullman can boast all he wants about how excellent his writing is.  It’s like a kid praising their own drawing for the frige.  In their world, this is truth.

Thinking of taking those three books to recycling bin so paper can be put to a better use.

@Daria- I do that every time I’m at the store. Cosmo has gotten so pornographic. I started doing it because it is at my kids eye level but now I do it all the time. I also do it with the free local lgbt magazine at the library(of all places).

Every year at our parish festival there is a tent full of used books. Periodicallly during the weekend I peruse the tent and buy up all the New Age books as well as several versions of the Da Vinci Code, merely to dispose of them.
I first started this when I overheard one parishoner recommending the Da Vinci Code to another.
A few years ago I had at least three copies of it at once and the young man checking me out said “wow you must really like this book.” I replied that “no it was anti-Catholic nonsense and I was buying them to throw them out”. He was speechless.

So I say destroy away…................

Jeepers, Fisher. Remind me never to have you over to our house! We do our own sorting and purging, thank you very much!

Well, here’s the thing.  The bomb is illegal, but the key chains are the legal property of someone else.  We are not excused from the 7th commandment just because an object is sinful.  What about killing an abortionist; does his sin justify the killer’s sin?

That being said, I gleefully trash every hand me down my kids get that I find inappropriate, as well as books, like A Course in Miracles, that come into my possession (as well as all that Marianne Williamson crap I used to read).  I’m pretty sure I’m okay with hiding stuff as outlined above, and thank you ladies for the great ideas!

And definitely okay with buying/collecting items just for the purpose of trashing them.

Bad church music has no right to exist.  But that one is harder to shoot with a BB gun.

It makes me sad to meet people so inmature, violent and irrational. The worst was not the condoms’ part but the fact you are teaching your children this sort of behaviour is the right one. I could answer back each one of you but I’m afraid it’s not worth it because you are not going to hear me.

I didn’t find Simcha’s article too bad - good enough reasoning, well written, and funny as usual. (For what it’s worth, Simcha, your blog is the only one I’ve read that’s truly, genuinely funny, and I really do enjoy reading it.)
 
But the comments…! I know you all mean well, and of course you can do whatever you want with your own property (and, I suppose with free public property, though at that point it just seems selfish). But why? I’m an atheist and it would never, ever occur to me to burn religious books or deliberately misplace things I disagreed with so that others couldn’t find them. Of course, all the stuff you’re doing is legal, and it should be, but do you really feel you’re doing society a service? Is a society that suppresses dissenting views - even if you see those views as dangerous - a society you want to live in? Do you want people to believe as you do because they come to agree with you through reason and example, or do you want people to believe as you do because the other options are simply hidden from view?
 
This disappoints me. I thought you guys were better than this.

I agree with what you’re saying, and yet I don’t. Certainly there are plenty of people who would like to throw away Catholic and/or Christian things. There’s Annie hiding “Conversations” at the library but would you be happy about someone hiding all the Chestertons? Or what about the Christian groups that decide to burn any Bibles that aren’t KJV - there goes our St Ignatius or Douay-Rheims bibles? I have no qualms about disposing of questionable things or books that come into my hands but I’m not sure about the more “public property” situations.

Ha!  I loved Philip Pullman as a kid.  His writing is quite elegant, and his world-building is pretty impressive.  I was actually one of the teens who waited fervently for “The Amber Spyglass” to come out…and I hated it.  I think I may let my kids read the series some day (after Tolkien, of course), just to see how atheism makes for bad drama.  I mean, Pullman was setting up a Last Battle against the forces of Evil God, which was blasphemous but dramatic… and the big twist was, “Actually, there is no God!”  So everyone just says “Meh,” and goes home.  Unbelievable. 

It is very creepy, the way Pullman labored to create a world full of magic and the supernatural to draw kids in, and then labored to debunk all of it, making souls and spirits into clouds of subatomic particles.  He has an unbelievably dreary scene in which Lyra euthanizes some trapped ghosts so they can get more dead.  Tolkien’s stories stay gripping to the end, and Pullman is just jealous.

A stock clerk throwing away pornographic keychains? Sounds like we may know some of the same people.

But I still don’t agree with the clerk’s decision. I think we have to distinguish between a thing having no right to exist and me as an individual having the right to destroy it.

Great job!  My friend’s first grade teacher decided it was a good thing to read Pullman’s The Golden Compass to the kids.  Not surprisingly, some of the kids were scared since kids in the story were being abducted to be taken to the far north for weird experiments (and in the second book of the trilogy, His Dark Materials, the parents are having life sucked out of them-talk about breakdown of the family…) Anyway, I helped my friend get these books removed from the school.  They are anti Catholic, anti Christian in general, and actually very well written, by a dedicated atheist. We recently rented a vacation home with a well stocked library which included the Pullman books, as well as other atheist manifestos.  I put all these books in a closet for the duration of our stay.  Stopped short of destroying them, since I wanted our rental deposit back!

I am a Catholic and would never think of destroying books. Preventing it from getting into my family’s hands, sure. Compassionately preaching against it, definitely. But making unilateral decisions that affect others (throwing out my company’s stock of keychains without my paying for the privilege?)...surely not. And where is the line at what is trash and what is not? Remember - one woman’s nice pair of pants is a conservative man’s moral equivalent of a mini-skirt. What if bookstore managers decided that things that have no right to exist are Catholic/Christian books? I must agree with Michelle and Karyn. I would hate for this behavior to inspire ardent anti-Catholics to start their own subtle campaigns of depriving the world of Love and Responsibility, Chesterton, etc.

There is a line between destroying what you should and destroying that which doesn’t belong to you (ie. pornographic key chains - someone purchased it as merchandise for profit.)

But for the example of The DiVinci Code,  I dunno… I’m of the ilk that if voices are saying it’s anti-Catholic, I want to know what it says… so that I can speak as a Catholic.  My friend’s husband refused to read it… I felt I MUST read it so that I speak the truth to others who read it.
I mean… Katie Couric did an interview (I can’t remember specifics… it was so long ago) and said something along the lines of , “Now that we know that Jesus had children…”  Um Katie, the book IS FICTION!
Now isn’t it better that some of us read the book so that we can educate the IDIOTS who read it?!

That’s why I like this quote from Charles Gibson, “It is dangerous for American citizens to get their news and information only from sources that reinforce their own opinion.”

How are you going to know what the idiots think unless you read what the idiots are reading?!!

I have to agree with Karyn, Michelle and Book_nerd, I was quite disturbed to read this on the NC Register site. Are we really suggesting people can steal things from their job they find objectionable?  What happened to you may not do evil that good may come from it.  I’m pretty shocked…and Michelle, as a Catholic (not a very good one, if you talk to my confessor), I agree and I hope you won’t assume that all Catholics think/behave like this.

You can always indulge in the positive flip side of trashing Phillip Pullman. I was at the library once, feeling depressed about how few of the books in the YA section I’d actually recommend to a friend. So then I took The Scarlet Pimpernel and a couple other good books and put them on the Other Teen Readers Recommend table on top of all the different Twilight knockoffs. Then I snuck home, feeling slightly illegal. ;D

In the small southern town I used to live in, there were the entire set of Rebecca Brown books in the non-fiction section of the library.  Those of you who are familiar with Ms. Brown’s work understand two things by this statement:  1. there is a shocking amount of violent anti-Catholicism in those books and 2. any book that claims that werewolves have infiltrated world banking systems should not be in the non-fiction section.

I asked the librarian the protocol for asking for a book to either be removed entirely, or at least slapped with a sensible “fiction” label and moved away from the its place right next to the Catechism.  She handed me a form, I filled it out carefully and honestly, and was eventually told by letter that after review, the book was going to stay.  Circulation records indicate that Ms. Brown was a popular author, and her books were frequently checked out.

So I took all those books and slipped them in between the stacks in the fiction section.  Next time a large scale inventory took place they’d probably find them and return them, but until then I didn’t have to wonder if the woman next to me at Wal-Mart had just read a “non-fiction” book insisting that nuns were witches and that the devil got married to a human woman in a Presbyterian church.

@Louise and others:  I apologize for not making it more clear that I was describing the scenario of the stock clerk as a discussion-starter, not as a recommendation for action.  So far, I haven’t seen anyone (myself or any of the commenters) say that it’s okay to steal things that they find objectionable. My goal was to start a conversation, so I’m not sure why you would be shocked or disturbed.

You, my dear Simcha, are my favorite authoress! Touche’ to your wonderful bibliophages, to boot!

Um seriously? Taking stuff from work or stores or other peoples homes is not OK. There are people who would me more than happy to ban the catechism or burn bibles and I’m sure that you guys would all have a hissy fit over that sort of “bomb diffusing”. That said, when I got rid of all my christian patriarchy/quiverfull books, they went straight into the garbage. I’d hate for another person to get sucked into that because of one of my old books.

Um seriously, please read my above comment.  I didn’t say it was okay - I was trying to discern WHY it’s not okay.

When my oldest was a baby, my mother sent him a hardcover copy of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.  No accompanying letter, just the book in a box. I called her up and asked her what in the name of sanity she was thinking. “I’m going to buy him the whole set,” she said. “These books are going to be CLASSICS.” Had she read them, I asked? “No, but they’re so popular and everyone tells me they’re wonderful for kids!”  Gads.

...

I read the entire Harry Potter series.  Not particularly because I liked them—I thought the writing was sub par for a fantasy series, and I didn’t engage with many of the characters—but so I’d know what my kids were going to be up against.  In the end, my husband and I decided to not allow Harry Potter and his ilk in our house.  Tolkien, yes. Gandalf? Most certainly.  Slytherin and Griffindor? No thank you.  Goblet of Fire went in the trash, not donated.

“I know this isn’t the kind of commment you were asking for, but I have to say this. That Pullman quote gave me an uncharitable desire to punch his neotheophobe face.”

For what it’s worth, St. Nicholas once punched Arius in the face. Because he was a heretic, and he deserved it.

What about John Newman’s Idea of the University?    Isnt’ that the Catholic ideal?    Personally, I wouldn’t destroy someone else’s idea, even if I were able to acquire it for free.  Now if it were given to me as a present, I’d most likely toss it -  I do throw away slutty clothes that my daughter has been given.  But to acquire something expressly to throw it away?  I wouldn’t do it.

When I was in high school I used to work at a convenience store and I did sell pornographic magazines although I really wanted not to - not out of a religious sensibility back then, but a feminist one.  But I was a kid and I didn’t want to make waves.    If I were in that position now, I would be concerned about losing my job and not being able to care for my family.  I suspect I need to pray for more faith in the Lord’s provision.

I’m sorry to tell you that destroying books puts you in bad company - mine.  My husband couldn’t bear to let some of his books go back into circulation, so we had a rolicking good time using them as target practice and then had a bonfire with the remnants.  They didn’t deserve to exist, so we helped them on their way.

And once when Mike and I found ourselves in the OB’s waiting room alone we shoved all of the various birth control ads and pamphlets and whathaveyou into my gigantic purse and then threw it out at home.  It was tons of stuff, but nobody needed it. It was wild.

my wife and I have both occasionally commandeered Jack-Chick tracks as well as other sundry and anti-Catholic literature found on display in various places and filed them. Your Welcome!

As to Simcha’s question of why it is not okay, I would say tolerance.  We tolerate some things that we disagree with because we desire a greater good to survive.  I have turned around a Cosmo before in the checkout line, but afterward my conscience bothered me for it.  The better action would be to shop elsewhere that doesn’t do this, don’t take children to the store, if personally tempted, then prepare yourself or avoid that line or glance.  I do know that I would be upset if someone came into my front yard and hid my St. Francis statue.

I have to say that I’m really enjoying reading these comments.  They have to be the first set of comments that I’ve read that are polite while at the same time represent different views.  So far they’ve given me a lot to think about and I am looking forward to reading what other’s have to say.

I’ll never forget—and it’s one of my earliest memories—my mother standing in the tiny book isle of a K-Mart in the early 1970’s, calmly ripping out page after page of a “100 Best Polish Jokes” book.  Her proud posture and dignified face told me everything I needed to know.  She wasn’t doing anything wrong; he was doing the absolute RIGHT thing.  Bravo, Mom.

Please don’t purposely misplace things at libraries. It sort of works against the purpose of the institution, don’t you think? Truth is strong, it doesn’t need to be defended by that sort of tactics. Besides, when someone wants to borrow the offending book and it’s not there, the library may well buy another copy. One more sold.

I’m not sure I understand the “we have to read the ‘enemy’s’ works so we know what we’re up against”.

In the first place, I don’t have time to read all the silly non-sense in the world. I’ve sampled about a paragrah or two of harry and of davinci, and I was able to appreciate that it was not in the least good literature, or even decently written. I’d much rather spend the little free time I have with family or filling myself with things that are worthwhile. and beautiful.

And in the second place, if truth and beauty and goodness really are attractive, why bother to learn about the slime of the earth? If you want to convert the evilmesmerized, simply present goodness and beauty and truth as they are, in their attractive self. So, it seems we should much rather study, get to know and live beauty truth and goodness intimately, and we will naturally model them for others.

Simcha, I love you, and I SO agree about pullman! I read one book of his stupid books and couldn’t stomach any more than that. I would have loved to witness the fun your kids had. BUT… using your logic we would have to throw away lots of merchandise from store shelves without purchasing it, whether we work there or not. And also tear down the insufferable condom machines from the gas station toilets. We could go on a mission to rid the world of things that should not exist, but we would have to be consistent. And the mission would never end, except that we would be thrown in jail, and then we could start tossing things we find there.

I think garbage like Pullman’s books actually help us make our case so I would never destroy them.  I do understand that some people are persuaded by such drivel but that is why Christ tells us to evangelize!  I would never allow slutty clothes or pornography into my home and have taught my children accordingly.  Seeing it in public is vile in the extreme and I let people know that their attire is equivalent to wearing a sign that says “I’m a slut” ect…  Violating someone’s dignity, if they are wrong, is also wrong.  Let your opinion be heard but with Charity and Truth as your guide!!!

Only a dolt of gigantic proportions could read Tolkein, or know anything about the man, and call him trivial (especially in regards to the ‘big’ issues he mentions in the interview).

That comment alone should disqualify him from ever being allowed to put pen to paper.

P.S. For anyone interested in a look at the role Tolkein’s Catholic faith played in the mythos of middle-earth, I highly recommend Joseph Pearce’s book Tolkein: Man and Myth, a Literary Life.

It helps explain the sense of sacredness and sanity that pervades Tolkein’s work and how that connects to his deep faith.

http://tinyurl.com/3j3dlf9

I frequently flip heretical, scandalous, or otherwise bad books and movies around when I go to places like Barnes & Noble.  I always hope that it will at least keep someone from reading it, before it gets flipped around again.

A stock clerk throwing away keychains has just stolen said keychains and rightfully should lose his job and make restitution.

Also, technically, messing around with a display so that people can’t find what they’re looking for is shoplifting because you’re preventing a sale from being made.  And it makes life harder for those who have to go back and fix what you’ve just messed up.  I’m a Catholic and I remember getting irritated by this when I used to work at a bookstore.  There is a ton of stuff I needed to be doing and my day got a whole lot more crowded because someone got cute and flipped all of the Hitchens books around or put Bibles over them.  From my end, it comes off about as charitable as deliberately stomping on someone’s toe cuz he didn’t give his seat on the bus to an old lady.

Yes, it’s crap.  No, it shouldn’t exist.  But it does.  And our best defense is to spread the truth.  Not to be obnoxious by trying to hide books in bookstores or grocery stores or libraries.  Freedom of thought is one of our most precious gifts.  Even God seeks to persuade, rather than force or completely prevent someone from thinking a certain way.

What you do with your personal property is your own choice but I think it crosses a line to mess with store products.

If you own something, you absolutely have the right to deal with it as you wish (though if it was a gift graciousness would, I believe, obligate you to find an alternative to destroying it if at all possible).

But if it isn’t yours? Well, we are a society of laws, not of vigilantes (though it hurts my Western soul just a teensy bit to admit that); and so none of us individually has the right to decree on others’ behalf what deserves and what doesn’t deserve to exist, what may or may not be made available in stores and libraries and schools.

That includes not only not stealing or destroying items we find offensive, but also not abusing others’ misguided attempts at charity (e.g. taking armfuls of complimentary condoms from the Planned Parenthood table in order to destroy them), or mis-filing things in a library or store in order to hide them from others.

If Catholic thing X and atheist thing Y are both legal in our community, then our pluralistic society demands that we Catholics not interfere with atheists’ rights to purvey and possess and make use of Y, so that in return the atheists are obligated to respect the same rights we have as to X. Unless or until, that is, we manage to convince society at large that X or Y is unacceptable or harmful, and it is banned or restricted by due process of law.

Yes, you may reply…but my statue of the Blessed Virgin is both beautiful and beneficial, and a Philip Pullman or Dan Brown book is neither! I agree. But respect for the law requires that we respect others’ freedom to choose these—and even far worse things—so long as they are lawful. As Sir Thomas More tells young Roper in Robert Bolt’s play:

“This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”

I am 63 and a devout traditional Catholic.I do not believe that my mission is to search and destroy things that I deem “should not exist” weather they have to do with my faith or not.I believe my mission is to pray for strong leaders in our Church, our governments, our schools and our families so that the culture of death,immodesty and anything goes will turn.I pray that out Lord will give us wisdom to instruct our children and grandchildren in the faith in order that they will be strong and able to stand firm against the temptations of the world.I pray that the light of our Lord will shine through us so that others will find their way to God.I don’t know what others are called to do I only know what I am called to do.

When I was in college and first owning my faith and discovering all the beauty and truth to be found, as well as discovering all the anti-Catholic literature that was out there, my friend and I were known to turn over a book or two in a bookstore for kicks. But I’ve since grown up and realized that doesn’t actually have an affect on anyone, and would echo others that have spoken of tolerance, prayer, and basically evangelizing in smarter, less deceiving ways.
In terms of the pornographic key chain scenario, I agree with whoever said that the best thing to do would be to have a talk with the store manager, express your discomfort, and see where that goes. It’s not okay to throw away someone else’s property.
The Catholic parish’s used book fair is another interesting scenario, one in which I would also see myself talking to the priest or director of the fair about the presence of anti-Catholic books there.

Oooh..sorry…you got me in a Tolkein mood now.  Another recommendation for Tolkein fans.

The 1981 BBC Audio Dramatization:

http://www.amazon.com/Lord-Rings-BBC-Dramatization/dp/0553456539

...it is absolutely wonderful, and I can not say enough good about it!  Almost (not quite) makes the movies unnecessary, and is MUCH truer to the source material.

The only odd thing is that since Ian Holm (Bilbo in the movies) plays Frodo in this dramatization, that can be disconcerting.

On the plus side, they include a few scenes that didn’t appear in the books, but were part of Tolkein’s unfinished tales.  They do this for transition purposes and it works very well.

Again, sorry to go on about Tolkein stuff, but anyone who REALLY cares about Tolkein’s work would truly love this and I thought I’d put it out there.

last one…I promise.  I included the wrong link (it’s to the more expensive version).  Here’s the version we purchased…

http://www.amazon.com/Lord-Rings-BBC-Dramatization-Consumer/dp/160283492X/ref=pd_sim_b_1

I appreciate the dangerous and destructive parallels between a bomb and pornography, and would daresay that the latter is the more lethal of the two.

But I think a more perfect comparison would be for you to be disposing of bombs delivered to you while working in an Army warehouse.  You work for people who deal in such things, and are thus as such people.

Not that I’m comparing soldiers to pornographers.  But both deal in death, and both choose their lot…normally.

To say that, the delivery of pornography would have been, by your employers, a desired event, and not an undesired assault, though the very existence of such stuff be an assault on human dignity and basic morality.

On the other hand, it might be akin to the confiscation of banned substances.  On the other, that would seem to be taking the law into your hands.  And in the last hand, as I’m apparently some multi-limbed alien, if the forces of governance refuse to enforce justice and protect the community, I tend to doubt the community can be lawfully condemned for protecting itself.

I would add further thought: I would suggest that a big point to consider would be the best way to change the heart/mind of the store owner, who alone is reponsible for distributing said pornography. Would it be A: stealing and throwing away his merchandise, or B: having an honest chat with him about how uncomfortable it makes you, and why.

Evil exists as well we all know, and will continue to exist in one form or another, until time ends, and all things are made new again in the name of Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.  Until such time the best way to fight evil is with proclaiming the Truth in all its innate beauty and joy. Guerilla tactics are not the best nor only way to accomplish our mission.

All the stories on here are bringing back some guilty teenage memories.  I did once hide a book I found in a school library… I believe it was “Satanism for Young People” or something, and it had a graphic section about sex magic.  I was like, Seriously? and I dropped it behind a bookshelf.  Now I feel a little guilty.  I should have complained about it to the library.  And yet, I instinctively felt that no one would care.  It was a lonely, rebellious moment.

I have recycled a book I bought to read on an airplane because I was mad at it for being so horribly written.  If the book belongs to you, do what ever you want with it.  It’s your property.  I know we have this medieval piety towards books (although not towards other print items), but it comes from an age when books were scarce and a few precious titles had barely been saved from barbarians.  I definitely feel this book-piety, but not towards ALL books; I would go crazy!

Turning Cosmo backwards so that people won’t be bombarded by the cover is a public service.  I’m sure people do it accidentally.  But throwing away the key chains?  No matter how vile they are, they are NOT a bomb.  They are not actually going to explode and kill people.  I would tell the manager that the things are in terrible taste and that we are not running an “Adult Novelties” store.

If you want to deliberately break the civil law (e.g. by stealing) for some reason you believe is good and necessary, you should apply MLK Jr’s principle of civil disobedience—that is, you break the law but at the same time you accept the consequences, even including jail-time, in order to show your respect for the rule of law in general.

RE: Cosmo in the checkout line:  The Wegman’s where my sisters live has brown wrapping over theirs.  I am currently in the process of writing to my local chain supermarket to ask them to do the same.  I don’t see why we all couldn’t ask that.  I have four boys and a very strong investment in keeping them from absorbing the idea that Cosmo is representative of women on any level.

//

RE: Destruction of Stupid or Evil Stuff:  I would definitely take the Pullman tapes from the free store and destroy them.  I would be more respectful of books, though, which to me have a kind of sacredness of form.  I would rip out the pages and recycle or even burn them.

//

Recently, as a prize for winning a poetry recitation contest, my 9 yo son was given a very intricately made book about Merlin and his spells.  It was way beyond a little kids’ “magical stories” kind of book and took itself very seriously.  I hid it until he forgot about it then threw it away—the pages being too thickly and lovingly bound and embossed to really tear out.  BUT:  Not before a tussle with my husband over it.  He didn’t feel it was right to throw away any book and thought it would serve as a useful springboard for discussion.  He is not a religious person and his tolerance for my religion wears quite thin when it comes to the subject of Evil as an active and willful presence(s) in the world.  I had to stand my ground on this one.

//

On the subject of when I will and will not take action outside of my own posessions:  I would never mess with a book in a library, just on principles alone.  The library is for everybody’s ideas, right or wrong.  I might put a note inside the book offering a different perspective, though. 
//
I also am extremely ambivalent about birth control.etc. pamphlets.  Eh, within their own ethical system they are something good, and I feel that aside from abortifacients, eschewing the use of birth control is primarily an ethical discipline like pacifism, or vegetarianism.  BUT I have been known to rip the stupid back page of the local free newpaper because of the stupid American Apparel ad on it.  (I hate their stupid porny ads and their whole corporate ethic—“sweatshop free”  notwithstanding.)  I have also been known to flip off and/or in some other way defile or deface a PETA campaign poster.  I hate their stupid porny ways, too.  I have no problems writing things on public posters that challenge the message, like “Please feed me!  I am starving!” on bone-thin models for expensive clothing. 

//

But I wouldn’t do anything about the porn keychains because they don’t belong to me (and if I were working at a convenience store I would definitely be in dire need of that job.)  In order to break a serious law in civil disobedience, I believe the stakes have to be very high—life or death.  I would agitate for them to be out of the sight of children, though.  I would make a darn nuisance of myself until they were.

One thing to consider when you are hiding books at the library or the bookstore; you may hide it well enough that when someone is looking for it the bookstore/library may order it again because they can not find it.  This would give more money to the publisher and or author and possibly make it look like there is more of a demand for that material so they make more of it.

Everyone :  Just wanted to say thank you for a fascinating and civil conversation.  I love that Catholics are almost always willing to delve in and identify the reasoning behind what we believe, as well as discussing the practical effects of what we do out of principle.

Simcha,
You do post entertaining and thought-provoking entries in your blog.
Thank you!
TeaPot562

Richard Griffiths, a retired professor of French, does not once mention JRRT in THE PEN AND THE CROSS: CATHOLICISM AND ENGLISH LITERATURE 1850-2000.  Now that is trivial.  Seriously, this lapse seriously compromises the book.

Seriously, seriously.  Seriously.  No, seriously.

Abject shame.

Actually, you might want to read the Pullman books someday just as an example of what either a bad philosophy or an over aggressive agenda can do to otherwise decent writing. There are parts of the trilogy that are actually quite beautiful. On the other hand, the death of God scene is so forced and ridiculous that it’s almost funny. I remember thinking that it was rather a shame: that if Pullman hadn’t been trying so hard to take down Christianity, he might have written a pretty good story.

But, no, he’s no Tolkien, not by a long shot.

This interesting.
At the Catholic High School where I teach, our pro-life club has a Pro-Life Awareness Day on the same day we leave for The March for Life (that evening).  Every year, militant, feminist FACULTY members pull down our posters and turn over our fliers and pamphlets all day long. (No - there are no photos of mutilated babies.)
We pray about this and our membership just keeps on growing!

If things are legitimately purchased by or given to a person, they can do with them what they want. If not, then it’s not acceptable to dispose of them for two reasons: tolerance, and law. People might not agree with society but this is the world we operate in. If someone wants to hide/rip apart/steal all the pornographic keyrings/books on the occult/insert vice device here, then it’s open season. This is not a spirit of loving tolerance, it is a spirit of indignanat self-righteousness. Maybe it would be done with good intentions, but would also be done with the assumption that the person is morally superior and able to decide for others who might be at a different stage in their journey to God. Someone might read an awful book, or see a tarty mannequin with a Jesus t-shirt, and decide that those things are bollocks and they won’t participate.

Remember, some people think that teaching Christian doctrine to children is just as damaging as we think exposing them to porn is. Some of them would feel justified at taking children away from such parents. A free society is a delicate balance!

“When I was in college and first owning my faith and discovering all the beauty and truth to be found, as well as discovering all the anti-Catholic literature that was out there, my friend and I were known to turn over a book or two in a bookstore for kicks. But I’ve since grown up and realized that doesn’t actually have an affect on anyone, and would echo others that have spoken of tolerance, prayer, and basically evangelizing in smarter, less deceiving ways.”
:
Exactly.  I like to think that I’ve grown up a little, and I wouldn’t mess with library (or bookstore) books again.  Really, you’re just making trouble for whoever has to stock the shelves.

What sort of society would we live in if we all began destroying everything we deemed to be of no worth? Suppose Mr. Pullman were to walk into a church and destroy everything that HE deemed to be of no value, and possibly harmful. I don’t see where you’d be anymore justified in destroying the keychains than he would be in destroying the stations of the cross or—God forbid—the consecrated Eucharist. In his mind, he’d just be “taking out the trash” or even “destroying a bomb” that could do no good.

Or, for a not so hypothetical scenario, our priest told us once of a parish at which some individuals who felt the Catholic Church was idolatrous broke the arms off a statue of the Blessed Mother. They probably thought they were saving souls.

Do you really want to live in a society in which your right to not have your property destroyed depends upon your neighbor’s approval of that property?

I could SO imagine a judge finding in favor of the bomber who sued for the destruction of his dis-armed bomb. You know in England a judge just awarded an ex-wife 10K against her ex-husband under the claim that he didn’t have sex with her enough? I wouldn’t put ANYTHING past a court.

It’s not up to me what has a right to exist. Pride is ugly, folks.

I’ve done the “hide the Cosmo” thing, mainly when my children were early readers and eye-level with the display.  I wasn’t covering up every “Cosmo” in the store, just the one that would have had my girls spelling out provocative headlines about ways to increase your current male partner’s physical pleasures—no eight-year-old should even *see* most of those words, let alone try to read them out loud.

But I also think that talking to store management is a better decision.  There is a right way and a wrong way to do this:

Wrong way: Look at this Cosmo!  Why do you have this evil filth in your store?!  This woman is dressed like a !@#$%, and these articles offend God and human beings!  The wrath of God will be poured out upon you, yea verily, until the tenth generation! Sores and boils will erupt on your corrupt flesh, and even the eyes of your children will not be spared! etc.

Right way: Excuse me, but have you ever considered how exploitative magazines like this are to women?  This publication encourages female degradation and promotes the idea that the whole point of a woman’s existence is to service men sexually.  I find that offensive, and I’m somewhat surprised that your company doesn’t—surprised and disappointed, especially since the *other* bigmartcorporatestore across the street has the decency at least to hide these magazines under plastic sleeves…I’m really tempted just to do all my shopping over there, even though I like your store better in many ways.

If enough of us did this, maybe we wouldn’t have to use poor Martha as a “slut-mag hider” in the grocery store.

I am a little surprised by a lot of the comments here. Turning around a copy of Cosmo is one thing, hiding library books is another. You can’t keep people from accessing trashy/tasteless/evil ideas and things anymore than you can make them accept the truth. I think it is great, though, that Simcha’s kids know what a ball peen hammer is and that they put one to such an (as the atheists say) elegant use!

Ah, Simcha…love your humor.  Tolkien is one of my heroes.  You guys should read his letters to his children.

What we really need to do though, folks, is start up a bunch of “Let’s Clean Up Society!” societies, just like William Wilberforce and the Clapham bunch back in England.  They didn’t just fight slavery, they didn’t just try to end bear-baiting and start schools for orphans, they DID IT ALL!  We’re talking dozens of societies here.  One could be the Society to Remove all Trashy Magazines to the back shelves of stores, especially at Walmart.  People would have to go to the back of the store to find them, and we could all take our children grocery shopping with a clearer conscience.  Whattdaya think?

This reminds me of one of my favorite book reviews, quoted on one of those BBC quiz shows once: “This is not a book to be lightly tossed aside. It should be hurled forcefully across the room!”

Well, if I worked at a store that sold pornographic key-chains, I would quit the same day! But I would certainly want to throw them out. Still, I wouldn’t throw them out if they were store property, any more than I would throw out a store’s guns and contraceptives just because they were dangerous and immoral respectively. We Catholics aren’t allowed to break the law after all.

http://missmarosblog.blogspot.com/

I wonder what some folks think of this lady’s actions back in my home town:
http://boingboing.net/2008/08/28/judge-orders-woman-t.html

This woman made financial restitution for the books from the get-go, and they still wanted to take her to court to make an example out of her. I have to say since the books are aimed at violating the innocence of children, they really do have no right to exist. Perhaps, if more people engaged in this kind of civil disobedience, we wouldn’t be in sorry state we’re in with regard to protecting children.

I’ve read most of the comments, and I’m not sure if anyone has made this point:  there is a difference between destroying pornography and destroying someone’s legitimate property:  the difference is, well, legitimacy.  Pornography is in no way legitimate property.  Nobody has a “right” to own it.  Maybe there are some items that are grey area, but porn is not one of those.  I’m really shocked at how many people are talking about how “stealing is stealing”.  Well it’s not.  There are distinctions.  Now, whether someone is *obligated* to destroy those keychains—that is a harder one, but I think it should be obvious to anyone who has any sense of natural law that it is definitely okay and not a sin to destroy porn.  It’s as though y’all aren’t really understanding what porn is?  How about if we made it a little clearer—what if it were child porn—and let’s say child porn becomes legal in this country—would you still then be talking about how it’s someone’s “property”?  I’m guessing Jesus might have put a few dents in some tables and chairs when he was knocking them over, and what was being done there in the Temple was relatively mild compared to the dehumanization that pornography entails. 

I was once in someone’s house in a poor country in Europe, and going into the bathroom, I was shocked to see pornography covering the walls.  The only thing that stopped me from tearing it down was my knowledge that the man of the house was abusive and could possibly take his anger out upon his wife and child.  I did not think, “oh, this doesn’t belong to me so I shouldn’t destroy it”.  I can hardly believe how timid Catholics and Christians have become in this age.

As for breaking “the law”, I would like to remind folks that an unjust law is not actually a law, according to the Universal Doctor of the Church.  So we are not morally bound to observe such “laws”; in fact, sometimes we are *obligated* to disobey such “laws”, and sometimes whether we obey or not will be a matter of prudence.

As others have stated, I think the question is one of legal possession. You should not destroy something that is not yours. As for moving things around in the public spaces (libraries & bookstores especially), I understand why it’s done, but—having worked retail—it is NOT NICE. And I do believe it is important to know what one is up against, I read the Twilight books for that reason. (Verdict : Who edited them? The bad ideas pale in comparison to the awful writing.)

A number of good arguments have been made in favor of hiding or removing objectionable articles in public spaces.

On the other hand, one question that suggests itself is: to what extent might such activities become, in the hearts and minds of young people – as well as in our own – substitutes for the difficult and demanding work of rooting out and destroying objectionable content from our own souls? For example, temptations and even habits of pride, envy, lust, greed, anger, etc. are present in all of us, and will lead to great unhappiness for ourselves. These we would root out by frequent prayer throughout the day, by frequent reception of the sacraments, by daily spiritual reading, by cultivating the habits of the opposite virtues (humility, charity, temperance, etc.), by the habit recollection, by living constantly in the presence of God, by daily examination of conscience, and so on.

If we can be sure of doing both: hiding and removing objectionable articles in public spaces *and* rooting out objectionable elements from our own souls, then why not do both? But if we suspect we are more likely to devote most of our attention to one and to neglect the other, I suggest that we would profit more from devoting ourselves to the latter rather than to the former.

Rebecca:

“You shall not steal” is not an unjust law. Property doesn’t cease being property because it is pornographic. These facts have nothing to do with timidity.

Tom K.,

Actually,  noone has the right to “own” pornographic material.  So, it is not really their property.  Just as a store owner who refuses to give bread (or other food) to a starving person does not actually own the bread.  It, instead, belongs to the starving person.  So, destroying this poperty is not an act of stealing.

I have had a few thoughts about this matter.  I agree that we cannot go about destroying all that is evil in the world, it is just not feasible.  That being said, if we do not take it upon ourselves to destroy that which is blasphemous or blatantly anti-Catholic, then who will.  We do need to take appropriate channels, like speaking to the manager, but we also need to guard against timidity.  Tolerance is not the queen virtue, prudence is.  In fact, Sacred Scripture often prescribes destroying that which is evil, especially before the Israelites take over land.  Never does it say tolerate evil and let it exist amongst your communities. The problem comes, I think, from a distortion of the meaning of prudence.  Prudence means knowing what the right things is then doing the right thing in the right way at the right time.  It often takes courage to be prudent.  The other principle that is in play hear is the principle of double effect.  A moral action involves an intention.  Now, one can take an action to bring about a good end, even if that action has an added evil effect.  For example, it is morally licit to take lethal action to stop a person from killing your or others, unless a non lethal option is available.  In this scenario, one does not intend the death of the attacker, but that they are prevented from killing people.  However, the action has two ends, the stopping of the attacker and his death.  The same principle comes with the destruction of pornography or anti-Catholic material.  The person intends to prevent the material from corrupting others minds and hearts.  The action taken is not a means to this end (do evil that good may come from it) but, rather, has a double effect.  It stops the evil but also destroys the thing.  As long as the evil is not greater than the good, this is an morally licit action.  Imagine, if communities refused to allow evil, like pornographic peddlers or abortion mills, to be built through legal means and other morally licit means (that, by the way, might not be legal according to the ‘law’ on the books), how many would prevented from falling into these traps set by Satan.  Of course St. Paul also counsels us to overcome evil with good, so the majority of our efforts must focused on spreading the truth of the Gospel, not rooting out evil.  -Sorry for the rambling nature of this post.

It should also be noted that if a person were to purchase said materials for the sake of destroying them, that person would be giving proximate moral consent to makers of said pornography.  Would you really want to give money to Playboy?  Clearly, the best thing to do is to avoid association with those scandalous materials and preach out against them when the Lord blesses you with an opportunity to do so.

Tom K.
S.T. (I looked in Secunda Secundæ Partis) doesn’t appear to address this, but I know he must have addressed this somewhere. More research needed.

I tore a page out of a library book before I returned it! Do you remember the very popular New York Times book Angela’s Ashes? Well the author Frank McCourt wrote another entitled ‘Tis. It had a nausea inducing account of the Holy Eucharist inter laced with a pornagraphic fantasy. Sorry but I refuse to believe I did anything wrong.

“Actually,  noone has the right to ‘own’ pornographic material.  So, it is not really their property.”

What’s your authority for this claim?

It is true that some laws are so unjust that they are not—ethically speaking—good law, and it is right and just to resist them. But no one’s talking here about a law that requires you to sacrifice your first-born child or shoot your grandmother in the head when she turns 75. It’s only in extreme cases that this principle comes into effect; and it’s hazardous to extrapolate from such cases to the more mundane outrages of daily life in our fallen and corrupt world. As the saying goes: “Hard cases make bad law.”

So: using this principle as a free-form excuse to cover an individual’s every moralistic and righteous impulse is dangerous and corrosive of the rule of law. Imagine a country of 300 million moral free agents, each reserving to him- or her-self the right to break any uncongenial law at any time, from simple vandalism of library books (because you’ve arrogated to yourself the right to decide what others may and may not read) all the way up to the law against murder (because you’ve sentenced an abortionist to death all by your lonesome).

That would not be a just society (not even if all 300 million were faithful Catholics!). That would be anarchy, Hobbes’ state of nature where life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”.

No, defiance of laws and mores and customs—and even just plain anti-social behavior, indulged in a righteous fervor—must be undertaken, if at all, only in the most extreme of cases, only as a legitimately constituted community of souls and not as individuals, and only after much prayer and with great fear and trembling.

Marion:

I’d be very interested to read what St. Thomas might have to say about something being “not really” the property of its owner on the basis of the thing not having the right to exist.

The example of bread taken by a starving man isn’t particularly relevant, since the bread is a good and the starving man does have the right of its use.

What Rebecca and Blake have proposed is something like the inverse of that case: that because the use of a thing is contrary to the natural law, it cannot be owned by anyone, and therefore can be disposed of by anyone.

Even if St. Thomas subscribed to such a theory, I’d want to see him conclude that an employee may dispose of things of which his employer claims ownership. St. Thomas is generally down on subordinates taking advantage of their position against the wishes of their superiors.

“Marion, I’d be very interested to read what St. Thomas might have to say about something being ‘not really’ the property of its owner on the basis of the thing not having the right to exist.”

I would be, too. I’d be interested either way. That’s why I started to research it. But I really can’t now; I’m at work. I didn’t find any such thing, either way. That’s what I was trying to say in my earlier message to you, Tom K.

(I think you’re a different Tom K. from the Tom K. that I thought you were. Oops! Sorry! My bad.)

With my green bags, I carry a stack of 81/2"X11” sheets of heavy paper printed with ‘I have covered this magazine because I believe it contains material which is inappropriate for my children to view while I am in the checkout line. with a link to AFA’s article on Glossy Garbage”
I use it on Cosmo very often because my local market refuses to move this magazine from the checkout to the magazine rack and I don’t want my children to read the essentially pornographic teasers on the cover.
At least a half a dozen times another mom has approached me asking where I got my flyers, sometimes I have taken their email addresses and sent them the template. Do what you can to protect your kids from garbage. Don’t apologize.
If that means trashing some Philip Pullman books- so be it…

In the past when I didn’t want a book or DVD any longer, I would simply donate it to the library. But since coming back to the Church, I’ve begun to question whether anyone should read/view these things if they are truly morally objectionable, and the answer is no. So now I add to the landfill instead of the stacks at the library. It’s not a huge gesture in the end - there is, unfortunately, no shortage of Pullman books in print, for example - but it keeps me morally in the clear and I feel better about that. I think its important to realize our part in the larger world. Nice topic, Simcha!

So. basically. everyone is condoning the denial of freedom for those who wish to make mistakes?

I thought as Catholics we’d be a lot less judgemental. sigh. It may not be right in your eyes or even the Church’s eyes to “allow” these things to exist. but you are all one step away from book burning, and that concept is just scary. really. think about it. If you don’t like it. leave it alone. but don’t make that judgement call for me, thank you.

Tom K.,

Pornographic material is immoral.  There is no licit use for it.  That means that ‘owning’ it is therefore immoral.  A right is actually an abstraction of another’s duty towards said person.  We say we have the right to own property, but what we mean is that other’s have the duty of respect towards our property, i.e. not stealing it.  We do not have a duty to allow others to posses that which has no licit use.  Thus, no one has the right to own these materials.  According to the CCC 2414, “The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason … lead to the enslavement of human being, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity.”  I would argue that pornography is doing just that.  In fact, civil authorities have a duty to prevent the production and distribution of such material. (CCC # 2354)

My take would be: if it’s yours: do whatever you want, if it’s public/no owner yet: procede with caution (turning a Cosmo or putting another magazine in front of it = ok, taking all the pamplhets of a morally questionable organization and throwing them away = not so much), if it’s private: talk with the owner

“We say we have the right to own property, but what we mean is that others have the duty of respect towards our property, i.e. not stealing it.”

Oh, the Church most definitely and clearly teaches a positive right of ownership, as well as a positive right of use. These rights can exist whether or not someone else is around who could in principle infringe on that right.

“We do not have a duty to allow others to posses that which has no licit use.  Thus, no one has the right to own these materials.”

Yes, I understand your argument. I’m asking whether your argument (more particularly, your premises) stands on any authority other than your own interpretation of the natural law.

“In fact, civil authorities have a duty to prevent the production and distribution of such material.”

We aren’t talking about civil authorities in this case, though, but private individuals. Civil authorities have the duty to do things an individual does not have the right to do.

Okay, does anyone here think that a good society would permit pornography to exist?  So the fact is that we have a bad society, which allows pornography to exist, and allows human beings to be treated like animals.  That bad law does not some how confer a “right” that did not exist previously.  The fact that slavery was legal did not itself confer the right to own a human being.  If a Catholic lived in a society where slavery was permitted, it would be a matter of prudence to what extent one would “respect” a slave-owner’s “rights”.  Once again, I’m wodering if you, Tom K, and others arguing your position, are really thinking about what pornography is, and I would like to hear your answer about child porn.

Whether the judges who try the cases of those who take private property and dispose of it when it is not theirs are in “their” right minds is the question here.  It is tricky to determine whether we can do any good from inside a prison cell.

I consider porn poison, pure and simple. It’s toxic waste

That said, however, there are things a private individual may do, and there are things that a competent judge, duly appointed by duly elected officials of the state may do. And some of these a private individual may not do.

In a society of laws, only competent civil authority can deprive a person of life, limb, liberty, property, and even then, only upon something called “due process.” Even a police officer doesn’t get to say, “Yah, that’s gross, burn it.” Duly constituted police authorities may seize the property, but they have to show due cause for having done so, and be prepared to swear before the judge in a court of law what they did, and how it all went down. If they don’t follow proper procedure, they - the police - can be sued, fined, fired, and the perp walks. The judge is required to allow the property owner to present a case, present witnesses, duly sworn, to cross-examine witnesses against him, to be represented by counsel, to have the proceedings entered into public record, and if it can be proven that the judge acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner in depriving the person of his property, to appeal to a higher court for redress.

After that, after *all* that, the civil authority has the right to finally and definitively deprive this individual of his property. Even porn property.

Private individual to private individual, not at all. As law-abiding Christians, we don’t lay a hand on another’s person or belongings without their permission, except in a life-threatening emergency, such as to carry a photo album out of a burning building, etc.

[Creds: I’m a lifelong Catholic. I always knelt for Communion until my bum knee caught up with me. I wear a hat to Mass every Sunday.]

I’m a confirmed believer in disposing of things that have no right to exist! It’s a ministry to souls to prevent them from being harmed by useless trash. For example, at some parishes people leave magazines filled with heretical junk laying around for others to pick up, free, after they’ve finished w/them. Without a moment’s compunction I pick them up and trash or recycle them…especially because I know that many souls who might pick them up are totally uncatechized, and very easily led astray.

I agree that some things have no right to exist—especially when it affects your family. I do not condone stealing and destoying another’s property. However, I did it myself when I found books on black magic and witchcraft in my own home six years ago. The in-law, an athiest and a druid who was living with us, was then told to leave.
Our home has been a hotbed of paranormal activity and aggressive attacks ever since, witnessed by several people. The pastor blessed it, to no avail. Renovating, I recently found a set of well hidden taroh cards based on “evil, demons, and devils.” It contained a booklet that warned it is a portal, and used for divination. I am now convinced some of these objects are instruments of evil, indeed portals, because all activity stopped when I disposed of these cards.

Remember, in a society of laws, individuals don’t get to decide what property of another individual should or shouldn’t be removed, hidden, confiscated or destroyed.

That’s how it’s done among tribes in the highlands of Outer Gonzualupa. Or in the mountains of Albania. Or among the Hatfields and the McCoys. I take your stuff. I feel every justification in the book, and can quote you out of the Bible a million reasons why I’m right to take you stuff. You take my stuff in retaliation. Now that ticks me off. I key your car in retaliation. You slash my tires in retaliation. I beat the cr*p out of you. You kill me and set my house on fire.

Ever watch Judge Judy? Once people start messing with each other in that way, this kind of stuff goes downhill real fast. It gets beyond ugly.

That’s what happens what each man decides for himself, on the spot, what property of another should be removed, hidden, or destroyed.

That’s why we have police, judges, and courts, to prevent exactly that kind of anarchy. The civil authorities decide these things. You don’t touch me or my belongings without my permission. I don’t touch you or your belongings without your permission. If there’s a problem beyond that, we have to go through the system - the law, the courts. Otherwise it’s anarchy. And even more than we don’t like pornography, Catholics don’t like anarchy.

This is all very interesting and I feel like I’m at a ping-pong or tennis match!

A question I’m coming up with is “How is pornography different from slavery?”

I’ve always considered those along the Underground Railroad to be heroes, but could see how the slave owners would have a very different opinion about the operation.

Pretty dangerous ground, this censorship thing.

My faith is strong enough to withstand having read a Dan Brown novel or two, and trying to purge the world of them seems extraordinarily silly. (Just like the books themselves; I would think that much is obvious even to the most unschooled reader.)

“How is pornography different from slavery?”

Slaves (the institution still exists in some places in the world) are not inanimate objects. Slaves are persons. It is against the natural law to treat persons as property, and against the dignity of the human person to use violence or threat of violence to make him subservient: to capture a person, and to hold him or her against their will. To buy a person; to sell a person. Forcibly to separate a person from father, mother, husband, wife, child. To force a person to commit sexual acts against their will. To force them to labor against their will. To release an individual from so deplorable a condition would be the duty and the obligation of all men of good will, if given the opportunity to do so.

Articles of pornography are inanimate objects, and, objectionable as their very existence surely is, they may still be considered to be the legally recognized property of an individual or firm, unless and until a court of law finds that they are obscene, and orders them seized and destroyed.

I have now read all the comments and have enjoyed considering them very much.  I’m throwing in my two cents that it’s not OK to try to save others from exposure to damaging ideas.  It’s just simply no one’s business.  On a personal level, sure, discuss ideas with someone:  but to scoop up birth control pamphlets or hide a book in the library?!  Absurd.  I’m a grown woman and how I choose to interact with the world, the influences I accept or reject, are my own responsibility and it’s quite presumptuous of any of you to try to take that away from me. 
//
I’m a Protestant; how would you all react if I, say, ripped the Apocrypha from your Bibles?  Or tore down signs pointing to a gathering to say a rosary because I wanted to keep you from the “idolatry” of the Hail Mary?  You’d be incensed, and rightly so.  (For the record, I don’t all feel those things are wrong, but I give those examples to make a point.)  I believe God gave us each a conscience and the ability to evaluate circumstances for ourselves.

Regarding pornography- if I could launch a personal tactical guerrilla assault on the whole industry and destroy every last bit of anything material (without physically harming any people) contributing to its creation, publication and distribution I would do it in a heartbeat, without any regard whatsoever for the 7th commandment. Same goes for heroin, methamphetamine and cocaine. I would only draw the line at harming human beings, and that would be a barely when it comes to those responsible for and cashing in on the $15 billion annual wholesale destruction of lives and souls in the wake of a permissive and morally bankrupt culture that protects these industries or fails to defeat them by rule of law.

Not very ladylike. Maybe not even authentically Catholic, but stomp on the head of that snake? Oh yeah, not even thinking twice.

Oh heck yeah I’d throw them out. Wouldn’t bat an eye.

Simcha, you’re great!  I started to do the same thing with certain clothing items my daughters were gifted.  I used to give them to good will, but then one day while staring at a hand-me-down metallic string bikini given to my 4 year old daughter from a relative, I realized much of this stuff has no right to exist and in the trash it went.  My husband took a while to get on board with the idea because he is very frugal minded.  But now he completely understands.

Erika, if you acted with passion when you ripped the rosary sign down, I’m sure God would straighten you out a lot sooner than later… Evil is evil and it affects everybody. No one sins in a vacuum… um there’s a better way to say that—but your sin, my sin, it affects everybody. AND we are all in this together.

So yeah, if there was a bomb ie porn ie abortion pamphlets—whatever, I’d like to get to heaven and say I did what I could, I tried to serve God the best I could with a prayerful discerning heart, my own 2 hands and my best judgement. However—I would be embarrassed to say I thought people were committing idolatry and did nothing.

p.s. WWJD?

It’s one thing to destroy items I already own, or to purchase an item and destroy it.

It is another thing to destroy, hide, remove, or otherwise interfere with an item belonging to another.

I know Catholics who believe very strongly that as Catholics we are to be very proactive stewards of God’s earth. They believe that SUV vehicles such as Ford Explorers, with their high fuel usage and low passenger ratio, contribute to a very high carbon footprint. They believe in not owning SUVs, and don’t buy them. They drive minis.

Suppose these Catholics decided that not only will they not own SUVs, but that SUVs have “no right to exist,” because they are helping to destroy the planet God created. These Catholics might decide that they would be doing God’s own work by jimmying open the gas tanks of SUVs in parking lots, and pouring in a few 16oz. bottles of Corn Syrup (the stuff we use to make Pecan Pie), which will eventually and pretty quickly gum up and destroy the vehicle’s engine.

If you would justify destroying articles of pornography which are the property of other people, would you also justify the actions of these Catholics in my example, who genuinely believe that SUVs “have no right to exist because they are helping to destroy God’s environment,” and who (theoretically) destroy other peoples SUVs in that way?

If so, why? If so, why not?

(Remember: I’m a Catholic who actually believes you don’t touch another’s person or possessions without their permission. Period. My question is hypothetical, for the sake of discussion.)

Rebecca:
The specific argument I’m addressing can be put this way:
1. It is contrary to natural law to assert the right of property over a thing that has no morally licit use.
2. A pornographic object has no morally licit use.
3. Therefore, it is contrary to natural law to assert the right of property over a pornographic object.
Yes, I am really thinking about what pornography is, and for the purposes of addressing this argument, I’ll stipulate that Premise 2 is true.
But that leaves us with Premise 1, which is an assertion about the natural law that I don’t find self-evidently true. Hence my questions about the authority with which it is asserted.
My answer about child porn is this: I think your hypothetical is sufficiently different from Simcha’s that any conclusions regarding one won’t necessarily apply to the other. My position is not that it is always and everywhere wrong to destroy anything someone else claims as his property, so the existence of circumstances in which I’d say it’s acceptable does not establish its acceptability in the matter of pornographic key chains.

There is an old axiom which is absolutely true. “Error has no rights.”  This is the main difference to remember when people ask how we would like it if they did it to Catholic books. We cannot put error on the same level as the truth. I am not advocating individuals go around destroying things because it would cause others to see us as lawbreakers and destroy credibility. However the government and the Church should destroy books and objects that are evil. Book burnings are not bad when the books being destroyed are immoral and/or heretical. Tolerance of error is NOT a virtue despite what everyone is brainwashed to believe these days. Read Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors. It is a fabulous document and despite convenient misconceptions still holds true today. Morality does NOT change with the times. Truth remains the same. Moral Relativity, i.e. “that may be true for you but not for me” is a foolish concept propagated today to make people feel good about themselves. We, however, must stand firm and reject falsehood wherever we find it. Heresy is a worse crime than murder since it destroys the soul, while murder harms only the body. This should show how serious ERROR is.

I’m seeing a lot of arguments along the lines of, “well what if everyone did that with whatever they disagreed with?  We’d have anarchy and chas, and how would you like that?”  Now I would like to recognize the validity of that point, as far as it goes.  Let me state that I wouldn’t necessarily, if I were that employee, throw away those keychains, for precisely those reasons.  But note that those are *prudential* reasons.  We happen to live in a society where, in order to enjoy religious freedom (which is the freedom to worship rightly), we also have to tolerate the “freedom” to do very bad things.  Now a society doesn’t *have* to be this way—it could provide religious freedom while strictly not tolerating things against the moral law—but our relativistic society is now unable to make distinctions and so the good is put in with the bad, and that is the way it has to be at this time.  So, in short, I agree that it would be imprudent for Catholics to go around destroying all the things that clearly don’t have a right to exist, because the result would most likely be the destruction of true freedom.  However, my point is that it is because of such prudence, not because of anyone’s “right” to own pornography, that the worker might choose not to destroy the keychains.  I am also saying that depending upon the circumstances, he might choose to destroy them, and accept the consequences.  We see similar things happening with the underground railroad, with operation rescue, and so on.  Where there was a reasonable hope of effecting change through civil disobedience (and accepting the legal consequences), it was worth making that attempt.  I would say that if there were a concerted effort of all who follow the natural moral law, concerning the destruction of pornography, and reasonable expectation of the success of this, that might actually be a prudent thing to do.

As for library books—I saw in my children’s library a book about how Danny has two daddies, right up there on the display shelf, and I shoved it under some other books in a corner.  I think I had not only the right but the duty to do so, just as if I had seen a sharp knife on the floor I would have put it out of reach. I am in awe, if any Catholic thinks I had no right to do that?  And soft porn at the eye level of my children in the grocery store—that I should have some kind of moral qualm about turning it around???

fair enough, Tom K.  I guess we can say that we agree insofar as we think that some areas are grey matter and some are more clear, but you’re putting ordinary porn in the grey area, whereas for me it is obviously something that can be destroyed without any moral qualms, accepting the consequences of the law if necessary.  And I also think that it may or may not be a prudent thing to do, depending upon circumstances.

I kind of don’t see why you’re having a problem with the premise that no rights would exist with respect to illicit things.  As someone stated earlier, rights are simply the converse or extension of duty, and have a basis in the nature of man and the licit use of creatures.  Something which violates that order is no longer in the realm of rights or duties.  However, how human law deals with such things is a different matter, and it may be necessary in a fallen world to tolerate certain evils for the sake of certain goods.  Maybe that is where the uncertainty comes in?

“I kind of don’t see why you’re having a problem with the premise that no rights would exist with respect to illicit things.  As someone stated earlier, rights are simply the converse or extension of duty, and have a basis in the nature of man and the licit use of creatures.”

Well, you see, I deny that rights are simply the converse or extension of duty. In fact, I assert that the Church explicitly teaches that rights are *not* simply the converse or extension of duty. Pope Leo XIII, for example, states in Rerum Novarum that “it is precisely in [the] power of disposal that ownership obtains,” and while the power of disposal clearly entails for others a duty not to interfere with lawful disposal, it neither arises from nor amounts merely to the converse of that duty.

maybe you’re right, but I’d like to see more “text” on the Church explicitly teaching that rights are not defined in relation to duty.  In the example you mentioned, doesn’t the right of ownership come from a duty of stewardship?  In any case, is it possible to prescind from that particular argument, and could you agree that rights do arise from the nature of man, what accords with his happiness, and the licit use of created things in accord with that man’s nature?

I’m sorry, the last bit should read “in accord with man’s nature” not “in accord with that man’s nature”

You don’t have to hide or steal books to dissuade people!  When the Ezzo books were really popular in my town, I printed out some trifold flyers from ezzo.info and simply tucked them in to every copy I found.  No stealing, no defacing, but mission accomplished!

“maybe you’re right, but I’d like to see more ‘text’ on the Church explicitly teaching that rights are not defined in relation to duty. In the example you mentioned, doesn’t the right of ownership come from a duty of stewardship?”
Sorry, I thought you were following Blake’s statement above that, “A right is actually an abstraction of another’s duty towards said person.” If you read, for example, the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church #176 (and trace through the footnoted references), I think you’ll find plenty of evidence that the Church does not consider private ownership of goods to be an abstraction of *another’s* duty toward the owner.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#The universal destination of goods and private property

But you were speaking of the relationship between a person’s rights and that same person’s duties. On that point, yes, “The universal destination of goods entails obligations on how goods are to be used by their legitimate owners.” [CSDC 178]

Treatments along these lines, though, don’t quite touch on the keychain question, since the context assumes that the goods under consideration are actually good. It’s not clear, to me at least, how Catholic doctrine on ownership of property applies when the property cannot be used to good purpose.

“when the property cannot be used to good purpose”

The problem is: who is authorized to determine that in the case of articles belonging to another?

Perhaps you read, a few years back, here in the U.S., of parents who took photographic film to a shop to be developed, depicting images of their own toddlers at the beach playing in the surf without a stitch of clothing, were *ARRESTED* and charged with possession of child pornography.

And at the time that the painting of the Sistine Chapel at the Vatican was freshly completed, the brilliant artist Michelangelo was *criticized* by certain influential persons for depicting Adam, Eve, and other figures without any sort of covering in the interest of delicacy. There was quite a dust-up about it at the time. Luckily, Pope Julius backed the view that the depiction of the nude human figure need not be in itself indecent.

But many, many people would not agree. And would feel justified in condemning Venus de Milo, Michelangelo’s “David”, and other superb works of art. Or books depticting instances to rape, adultery and lust. (Such as the Holy Bible!)

Private individuals, acting on their own, no matter how well-intentioned, or pure at heart, ought not to take it upon themselves to act on the belongings of others. It really should be for a court of law to decide.

And even though, unfortunately, today, our courts of law generally seem to side with the bad guys, *that* fact, in and of itself, does not give you or me the right to take the law into our own hands with respect to the belongings of another.

I’ve dealt with this topic in the past so I hope I can offer some helpful insight. I worked in a drugstore that sold bad magazines and birth control devices (and most likely abortion pills and worse). I asked a priest I’d seen on EWTN about it. The answer was that one is obligated to find another job if they can. In other words, I couldn’t throw away the bad merchandise (because basically you’d be considered a thief and reported to the police or fired.. doing wrong to right a wrong aka immorality wouldn’t make it right).  As to throwing things away that you have the right to throw away (public literature you see for the taking, like those mags on Jehovah Witnesses in the laundry mat) can and SHOULD be thrown away. Do you have an obligation to throw them again, hmm.. not really but as a faithful Catholic, it would be wise to discard something you know will HARM someone spiritually. Jehovah Witness magazines are full of anti-Catholic stuff. I used to see them all the time at the apt complex we lived in down in New Orleans. It would be a form of censorship, if you will.

Personally, I think censorship IS needed if you have the ability to do so. If you know a radio station is playing really bad music on it at work, you can try to ask the boss to change it. Just don’t be so blunt about it. Instead, say something like, “I think our customers will prefer a new radio station over the comm instead.”  You never know. That one suggestion might lead to some better, more moral music instead. Like that KLOVE Christian radio station. Look that up online, they have wonderful music. :)

On the comment about throwing books out. I did that too years back. A friend and I used to go to a used book sale. Sadly it was in the basement of a Catholic church and it would include any and all books donated to them. There were a lot of occult books, if you can imagine, as well as x-rated romance novels. They would have $1 for a whole bag day and we’d go and fill up our paper bags with tons of books. There were also good religious books there too, so we would go home and sort the good from the bad. The bad would be ripped up and tossed into the trash. Sometimes the books were heavy to carry (as we took the bus at the time) and I’d dump the bad ones in the public trash ONLY after I ripped them up as much as possible. I could imagine someone actually taking the bad book out of the trash. I felt I might have saved one soul from reading (and believing) in the many satanic books we found.

BELIEVE ME, this does make a difference. I was introduced to the occult when I was in high school. The school library had the whole encyclopedia on the occult there. If it wasn’t for a religious student turning me away from the books, I might have indulged terribly in them. I did get into the occult a bit and it was all from reading a bad book. So by all means, DUMP the bad books if you can. :)

Among items donated to our church’s extensive library was a *very* feminist,inclusive language, watered down, emasculated translation of the Psalms.  No reference to the Almighty as male, no use of the word “king” (implies domination by males; “ruler” will do.) No use of the word “slave” (it’s classist; “servant” will do.)  El Shaddai is referred to as “The Breasted God.”  Reading it is alternately side-splitting and infuriating. My husband and I intercepted it before it could be shelved.  It seemed sacrilegious to burn what is still scripture and we didn’t want to take it to the resale shop because we didn’t want anyone to think it’s a good thing.  Finally, we took it home and put it in our humor collection.  There it will sit, and our Catholic friends will have a good laugh (while we pray for the misguided authors…)

I noticed Kayla (almost looks like my screen name) said the same thing I did about the Watchtower publications. Yup. If it’s free to the public and I know it’s spiritually harmful, I’m gonna take it home and toss it. I’ve known how books in my past (given to me by others or find on my own) hurt me spiritually, especially occult related books, so if its not a crime… and its free for the public to take, I’ll toss it. ;)

Any books that devout Catholics actually destroy have GOT to be pretty compelling, and I look forward to buying them and reading them with my kids.

To weigh in on the original post: I don’t see how anyone could object to the destruction of private property, nor NOT object to the destruction of other people’s property. If one has a problem with something that’s the property of others (library books, magazines on store shelves, obscene key chains, etc.) there are proper channels for registering complaints, carrying out boycotts, etc.
I also don’t understand how anyone could encourage her children to destroy a book that she herself admits she’s never read, just because she (quite reasonably) opposes what she knows of the author’s stated beliefs. She “imagine learning a lot” from “Mein Kampf,” but Philip Pullman writes “trash that has no right to exist?”
I just ordered the trilogy on Amazon, and I look forward to finding out for myself.

L wrote, “Any books that devout Catholics actually destroy have GOT to be pretty compelling, and I look forward to buying them and reading them with my kids.” and . . .

“I just ordered the trilogy on Amazon, and I look forward to finding out for myself.”

Heh. The book published in 1998, “A Journey along Old Southwestern trails: Arizona, New Mexico and Texas roads and highways” by Marion Mael Muire ($19.95 plus shipping) has been condemned . . . yeh, that’s right, condemned by the Catholic Church. I highly suggest, L., that you tell your friends that this book has been condemned, and they should all stay away from it, and not order it from Hermph Publishing, Indianapolis, Indiana, ISBN 3387-11863994. Bulk quantity discounts available.)

Whatever you do, L., I command you not to order my book!

I’d be careful about taking free literature only to destroy it. One or two copies—that’s surely okay. A huge stack…not so much.

Taking big stacks of conservative student newspapers and trashing them has been a favorite tactic of the intolerant Left on college campuses, and on the better campuses people have even got in trouble for it.

Much better to fight untruth with the truth. Perhaps there are appropriate Catholic tracts that one could buy and leave in a stack next to the Watchtower publications?

“Taking big stacks of conservative student newspapers and trashing them has been a favorite tactic of the intolerant Left on college campuses, and on the better campuses people have even got in trouble for it.”
:
Yes.  If we don’t like it when people do it to us, we shouldn’t do it to them.  I believe that is known as the Silver Rule (the Golden Rule is positive rather than negative).

L wrote: “Any books that devout Catholics actually destroy have GOT to be pretty compelling, and I look forward to buying them and reading them with my kids.”

I hear that many devout Catholics have destroyed copies of _A Compendium of Indonesian Orchids: Gems of the Rainforest in Color_ (by Marion Mael Muire, photographs by H. Switherton Snetterton. Published in 1997 by Harmuph Publishers, Indianapolis, IN, and avail. in fine bookstores everywhere, or on the Harumph Publishers website.

I highly command you, as a Catholic, L. do not buy or read copies of this book. And be sure to tell all your friends.

No, I cannot approve of destroying any kind of literature. Everyone has the right to express themselves, and maybe destroying books you don’t like when there are millions of copies in print (and now on the Internet) is an empty gesture. Read the book and publish your criticisms. Show people you know what you are talking about. I have no respect for people who won’t read a book because someone else said it is ant-christian, or whatever. There are some writers who spew the worst kind of philosophy while claiming to be Christian. Other Christians should be able to debate them.

Another commenter wrote, “I have no respect for people who won’t read a book because someone else said it is ant-christian, or whatever.”

Just as everyone has the right to read any book they want; people have the right to beg off from reading any book they want, and without being criticized for it.

I have ZERO to desire to read any book by any proponents of neo-Nazism or of white supremacy. Or of anything supremacy, for that matter. Anything about hate, conspiracies, about how some people are taking over the world, or want to . . . I have never read a single book of that type, not even once, and I can tell you without a doubt, none of it is worth reading for anyone with half-a-brain in their head or an ounce of common sense or decency.

Anything that dwells on the negative, the grisly, the gruesome, anything written to shock, to be prurient, anything obviously intended to undermine that which helps to hold civilization together? I don’t want to read it. I have only so much time and bandwidth for my reading, and I want to make sure only really quality reading materials are on my schedule. If I weren’t very, very selective about what I read, then I would have to cut back on the time I devote to something else: a fitness class, lunches with friends, fixing heart-healthy meals for my family, cleaning the house, going to a museum, etc. You think I’m going to cut into my time to see the latest exhibit at the local art gallery to allow me to give a fair hearing to a neo-Nazi or an anti-Christian author?

Not happening. It’s not being closed-minded. It’s called being a savvy consumer.

So it’s OK for an Atheist to burn a Bible because Richard Dawkins, etc. say it provokes violence and intolerance? Do you approve the destruction of the Koran and other religious books? Would you burn books by Ann Coulter, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and so on?
—-
I’m not saying you have to buy the book because of negative reviews. I just think there should be critical readers from various backgrounds and cultures to criticize repugnant writings so that the young and vulnerable will not be indoctrinated into hateful thinking.
—-
You cannot shield people from evil thought without identifying the kind of thoughts that are evil. Really vicious books should be reserved for adults, but we all need to know their nature.

Marion—orchids resemble female genitalia, so I’m not surprised that good people everywhere seek to eradicate images of that obscene flower. And I have full respect for people choosing not to read books. There are many I choose not to read myself, for all sorts of reasons. There is probably content out there that even I would destroy, but not based solely on what I’ve heard about it.

“So it’s OK for an Atheist to burn a Bible because Richard Dawkins, etc. say it provokes violence and intolerance? Do you approve the destruction of the Koran and other religious books? Would you burn books by Ann Coulter, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and so on?”

Um.

Where did I ever say anything about approving of burning books, or burning books myself?

HEL-lo!

I would burn leaves. Dead leaves from trees, not leaves from, you know, books. I would burn logs in a fireplace. I would burn newspapers to get the logs started. I would burn charcoal to grill steaks or burgers or dogs. Let’s see. I would even burn an American flag . . . in accordance with the Flag Retirement Ceremony, if it were a torn, tattered, and worn flag. (You carefully cut the stars and stripes apart with a pair of scissors and gently and respectfully lay them piece by piece on your fire.)

I don’t have time or energy to go around burning books or reading books that are no good for me to read. I just don’t. I don’t have time or energy to slather my skin with Drano drain cleaner or to drink down a glass of white vinegar, or rub lemon juice in my eyes, or snuff fireplace soot up my nose, just so I can say I’ve experience these things, and can share that I’ve done so with others.

If you do have time and energy for that sort of thing, then Hey! Go for it! Knock yourself out! And good luck with that.

I’m not saying you have to buy the book because of negative reviews. I just think there should be critical readers from various backgrounds and cultures to criticize repugnant writings so that the young and vulnerable will not be
indoctrinated into hateful thinking.
—-
Maybe you don’t want to burn books, but you have to learn what people are thinking. Every once in a while, a critic you like may not have your views on a subject. I don’t read neo-nazi junk either, but I recognize it enough to compare it with other literature. All literature must be read critically.
—-
Would you suggest an Atheist read the Bible, even though the public critics of the Bible and religion call it hate literature? No, because the Bible has more to it than they suggest. Would you discourage a child of an atheist family not read the bible because his/her parents don’t believe?

“Would you suggest an Atheist read the Bible, even though the public critics of the Bible and religion call it hate literature?”

Aw, hell’s bells, Mary - the word “hate” is thrown around more than the words “and”, “if”, and “the”, anymore. Those who call the Bible “hate literature” would no doubt also stand by their PETA friends calling _the Joy of Cooking_ “hate literature” because it contains references to preparing animals and fish for the table; and their gay rights friends calling the Greater Los Angeles Metropolitan Yellow Pages, “hate literature” because it contains advertisements and listings for SSA recovery resources. . . WHAT-

-ever.

“Would you discourage a child of an atheist family not read the bible because his/her parents don’t believe?”

Many atheists believe their children should be acquainted with the Bible as Western literature, so that their children should not be kept in the dark as they encounter references to “David and Goliath,” or “handwriting on the wall”, or “do unto others,” or the thousand and one other historic and literary references drawn from the pages of the Good Book. Most atheists I know are very concerned that their children are successful in life, and don’t want their children to miss out on these references or to appear to others as not-very-well-read persons. Heck, from that standpoint, it wouldn’t surprise me if some youngsters from atheist families are as knowledgable - if not more so - about the Bible as many youngsters from religious homes.

“Those who call the Bible “hate literature” would no doubt also stand by their PETA friends calling _the Joy of Cooking_ “hate literature” because it contains references to preparing animals and fish for the table; and their gay rights friends calling the Greater Los Angeles Metropolitan Yellow Pages, “hate literature” because it contains advertisements and listings for SSA recovery resources.”
—-
You sure have a tendency to group a number of causes together. I doubt that Hitchens and others have any problem eating meat and fish, any more than Christians do. They may or may not have gay-rights friends, but they are not necessarily taking up their cause. You are expressing hate for a number of groups already.
—-
“Heck, from that standpoint, it wouldn’t surprise me if some youngsters from atheist families are as knowledgable - if not more so - about the Bible as many youngsters from religious homes.”
—-
That is probably very true—but don’t you think that is ironic? Why should Christian children believe in something they don’t understand? Also, atheists interpret the Bible as literature—not scientific or historical fact. They are free to critique the book with out being accused of blasphemy or “upsetting” anyone with their thoughts.
Atheists also don’t lie to their children about evolution and the age of the earth or deny the Holocaust or global warming, in spite of finding of the majority of scientists.
—-
You certainly have the time and the energy to condemn books you don’t read.

You are expressing hate for a number of groups already.

(Rolls eyes.) HERE we go. . .

You know what, dude? I’m done. I’m outa here. You go have yourself a nice rest of the nice weekend. And a nice life.

Peace out.

Good bye!

Like anyone was going to buy a cassette anyway, lol.

“Posted by Daria on Tuesday, Sep 6, 2011 11:18 AM (EDT):Here’s something I used to do and am thinking of starting again. In the checkout line—taking Cosmo or similar magazines and tucking them behind Martha Stewart. Or putting a Martha in front of Cosmo. I know that someone probably comes around each day and puts everything back, but the hope is that an occasional sale will be lost as a result of my actions.”

—my reply—so putting a criminal’s magazine in front of a indecent magazine is going to solve problems?  That’s like hiding pepper spray with a tazer…

...throwing away or destroying another person’s property is not very catholic..no matter how offensive you may find it to be…just like it is not nice when poeple vandelize a church or knock over cemetary stones.

We need to be exposed to sinful items—It teaches us as Catholics will power, a test of our faith and to learn right from wrong…

“Any books that devout Catholics actually destroy have GOT to be pretty compelling, and I look forward to buying them and reading them with my kids.”

True mark of maturity, rebellion.

hKateD—now what exactly do you mean by “rebellion?” It’s more like a seal of approval, suggesting I might enjoy reading/seeing/listening to it.

teedy, I would agree and disagree with the exposure of sinful items.  My child has yet to be completely grounded in her faith and I feel she should be protected from these sinful things. 

Also, no matter how grounded or mature you are, there are some things which are simply just not permitted.  Pornography, written or otherwise would be unacceptable.  Viewing these items would not help to ground our faith but to plant seeds of immorality in our minds ... it is a very thin line we walk with exposure.

L, you said it exactly.  Another’s disapproval made it that much more inciting to you.  Much like a teen might hide behind the shed and smoke because her parents were very much against it.  Never mind that it made absolute sense that her parents would disapprove of her smoking a cigarette which contained over 60 known carcinogens.  Mom and Dad didn’t like it therefore it made it very pleasurable to do.

hKateD, that would make sense if someone indeed savored the disapproval itself—but rather, it’s the actual contents of the books/movies I enjoy. In fact, I don’t enjoy all of them—it’s only one indicator suggesting that I will.
I suppose that destroying an audio cassette with a ball peen hammer of a work one hasn’t even read represents the height of maturity to you, and that blind obedience always trumps rebellion? So we ought to eradicate all fiction that we believe MIGHT be sinful, without even reading it first for ourselves?
Also, the word “rebellion” would imply that one accepts certain standards in the first place, and since I don’t, I’m merely making choices based on maximizing my own pleasure—which is the way I live my life, and the way I’m teaching my children to live it as well.

..also, hKateD, I wholly approve of your efforts to shield your child from influences with which you disapprove—I do the same.
But the original post isn’t about shielding children from bad influences. It’s about encouraging them to destroy something that is perceived as a bad influence, based only on what the parent has read about it, and not read the actual work. And it’s a work of fiction, not porn.

Great discussion. I found a book in my public library whose thesis was that the Catholic church was responsible for every evil incident in history.  It looked like it was typed in somebody’s basement.  I hid it very well.  The next time I went back it was right back where I found it. So someone was just as vested in promoting that message as I was in squashing it.

In hindsight, I think hiding it was an impulsive act.  What I should have done is pulled a good quality book about the faith and put it next to the garbage book.

I have never thought of purchasing things to destroy them, that is a new idea to me. But I would not go as far as to destroy someone else’s property.

Our local library was having a book sale. They were selling a popular anti-catholic book. I purchased the book and explained gently to the librarian that I intended to destroy it because it unfairly, untruthfully and obscenely portrayed elements of my faith. She had a fit! Went off about people’s “freedom to read uncensored”. I listened calmly, then explained that I too valued our democratic freedom. Particularly the freedom of speech and orderly protest. She could keep her right to read whatever she pleased so long as she afforded me the right to protest the trash she enjoyed. Freedom cuts both ways.

“
teedy, I would agree and disagree with the exposure of sinful items.  My child has yet to be completely grounded in her faith and I feel she should be protected from these sinful things. 

Also, no matter how grounded or mature you are, there are some things which are simply just not permitted.  Pornography, written or otherwise would be unacceptable.  Viewing these items would not help to ground our faith but to plant seeds of immorality in our minds ... it is a very thin line we walk with exposure.”

My reply—my comments were referring primarily to adults.  Of course, children need to be protected from such articles as pornography and the exposure of indecent lifestyles & indiviuals…That is the responsibilty of parents AND should be of the media (however, that has not been the case for many years)!

Carrie, Congratulations on wasting your time and money to burn a book! It’s nice that you have freedom of speech, but you deny it to others.

You have no problem with Catholic freedom of speech. This criminal is your guide:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8760103/Pope-accused-of-crimes-against-humanity.html

“
Posted by Carrie on Tuesday, Sep 13, 2011 9:00 AM (EDT):Our local library was having a book sale. They were selling a popular anti-catholic book. I purchased the book and explained gently to the librarian that I intended to destroy it because it unfairly, untruthfully and obscenely portrayed elements of my faith. She had a fit! Went off about people’s “freedom to read uncensored”. I listened calmly, then explained that I too valued our democratic freedom. Particularly the freedom of speech and orderly protest. She could keep her right to read whatever she pleased so long as she afforded me the right to protest the trash she enjoyed. Freedom cuts both ways.”

—Exactly, these librals seem to forget that their values (or lack there of) and ideals do not supersede others.  This woman that started her “rant and rave” about freedom is an excellent example of libral-hypocrite-Defending a person that created materials that degrades one’s faith. 

I just do not understand why “politically correct” individuals defend such things as baby killing, blasphemy, the mockery of marriage and acts of perversion—yet trash people that try to live by the values of faith, love, morality, goodness and respect for life…..IMO, that’s not being correct at all…

teedy:

You sound like Ann Coulter—another hate speech monger. You claim you’re all for freedom of speech. I don’t destroy her books, but I certainly think they are a kind of hate pornography. All of you make me sick.

Where is the bible “hate” literature?  From what I read, the teachings of Jesus were of love, compassion and forgiveness. 

I will never understand why people would slam the teachings or the good example such great spirits such as Jesus, the Dalai Lama, Mother Teresa and others that have tried to make the world a better place.

I also find it ironic how some parents would say that the church spreads hate and prejudice, yet they’ll turn around a buy a kid a video game that features shooting and killing people for sport!

“Posted by Mary on Tuesday, Sep 13, 2011 10:14 AM (EDT):teedy:

You sound like Ann Coulter—another hate speech monger. You claim you’re all for freedom of speech. I don’t destroy her books, but I certainly think they are a kind of hate pornography. All of you make me sick.”

—my reply, and you sound just like the hypocritical “politically correct” librals I’ve described.  Thank you for posting and volunteering youself as an example of what I am talking about!

...and by the way, Mary, I don’t destroy books—where you saw that in my posting is beyond me..

I just love people like Mary—they keyboard their Catholic bashing, hiding behind the internet.  Mary, do you have the nerve to call the Pope a criminal to me or any Catholic in person? LOL.  Pray for poor Mary, folks.

“Posted by Susan P. on Tuesday, Sep 13, 2011 1:52 PM (EDT):I just love people like Mary—they keyboard their Catholic bashing, hiding behind the internet.  Mary, do you have the nerve to call the Pope a criminal to me or any Catholic in person? LOL.  Pray for poor Mary, folks.”

—my reply—A phrase that Jesus said while on the cross that I hold close to my heart says it all, especially for ones like this “Mary” that has commented on this column: “Forgive them father, for THEY DO NOT KNOW what they are doing!”

Do you think I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division; for henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three; they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. (Luke 12:51-53)
——
For nation will rise up against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places: all this is but the beginning of the sufferings. (Matthew 24:7-8)
—-
You brood of vipers! how can you speak good, when you are evil? (Matthew 12:34)
—-
You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. (John 8:44)
—-
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. — Luke 19:27
—-

teedy:
What are “librals?” I consider myself a moderate conservative. I am against abortion, the death penalty, being taxed, etc. However, I do consider Ann Coulter, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and other such ilk, hateful people who would destroy this country if they could.

Susan P:
I can, and I have called the pope a criminal straight to different Catholics face to face. Some don’t talk to me anymore, some agree with me but still stay with their church.
You are quick to judge and you will be judged when your time comes.

“Posted by Mary on Tuesday, Sep 13, 2011 4:03 PM (EDT):teedy:
What are “librals?” I consider myself a moderate conservative. I am against abortion, the death penalty, being taxed, etc. However, I do consider Ann Coulter, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and other such ilk, hateful people who would destroy this country if they could.”

—my reply, LOL! at what you have to say about Bachman and Perry.  Are the two of them a bit extreme? yes, but their values, morals and faith are a lot more than what our current president and his followers offer!  A “moderate conservative”?  “What are librals”? -Please,enlighten us!  And just how is the Pope a criminal?  I am really curious who you think are outstanding individuals that are currently in our society. 

Also, are you even Catholic or do you post on this site just to vent and insult others that are faithful and try to do their best as people?  (And before you go there with accusations and start judging me and others regarding our faith, beliefs and the moral codes we try to live by, I know I am a sinner, can admit what my sins are, know I am not perfect.  And the best thing about being a Catholic?  Confession.  Where my God will forgive and forget…)

Just because someone like Brackman live’s a life of faith does not not make her a hateful person.  Catholics that do not agree with things that can end up poisoning society does not make a person “hateful.”  Awareness regarding morals, values, self respect and the laws of nature and God is absolutely needed more than ever.

The church and its teachings are truths, weather people want to admit to it or not.  When people bash the truth and our representer, the Pope, it’s because those kinds of people are indeed ignorant, the haters and cannot handle the truth!

Oh dear…another pseudo-intellectual with a child-mentality upset about judgement, named Mary.

We all make judgements everyday. And yes, I am quick to make the judgement that you need prayer.

As far as the Catholics who just stood there and let you call the Pope a criminal, all I can say is that it would not have gone like that with me. I wonder..did you pick your targets?

This site is a good argument for leaving the Catholic Faith.

“The church and its teachings are truths, weather people want to admit to it or not.”
You don’t need a “weather” man to show which way the wind blows.

I am a Catholic, too. And I tend to love reading any book that other Catholics condemn (though this is not always true—didn’t care for “The Da Vinci Code).”  I wouldn’t call the Pope a criminal, but I have said to people in person that I would be lying if I said I accepted all the teachings of the Church as true—which makes me a pretty rotten Catholic, so I don’t go around holding myself up as an example of one. I couldn’t be a confirmation sponsor for a friend’s daughter, for obvious reasons.

And I see lots of hate from my fellow Catholics on this post. I see sneering in every “LOL”—snarky laughter is NOT a sign of love.

“...another pseudo-intellectual with a child-mentality upset about judgement.”

This is not the way to win arguments. But I have a feeling that no one is commenting here to change anyone’s heart or mind.

L.  You are correct.  I have no intention of being civil to the likes of Mary. I did say a prayer for her—that she will become a decent person.

Well, I have to admit, I’m “the likes of Mary,” too—I daresay most of my fellow Catholics don’t consider me to be a “decent” person.

I stopped commenting on most Catholic blogs earlier this year, after a bad experience in which I was personally attacked—I decided not to waste my time anymore. And this comment thread has made me think that perhaps I ought to keep staying away.

But I felt compelled to speak out against destroying books which one hasn’t even read.

Okay, closing this thread now, on the grounds that nobody has come out looking anywhere near good for several days.  I would like to point out that I made my decision about Pullman’s intentions based on his own words specifically about his intentions, and not because the Catholic Fearmonger’s Literary Club said they were icky.  If the author himself is not a trustworthy spokesman regarding his own work, then that’s all the more reason that his books probably suck.  Life’s too short.

.

For future reference, any comments by Catholics using prayer as a bullying tactic, and any comments by disenfranchised Catholics using “I left the Church because of YOU” as a bullying tactic, will be immediately taken out and shot with my husband’s BB gun.  Goodnight, folks.