8 Banned Books To Celebrate Blasphemy Day

(RNS) Not only is Wednesday (Sept. 30) International Blasphemy Rights Day, it’s also midway through Banned Books Week.

For millennia, governments and societies have used legal and commercial means to censor ideas and expressions that challenge established beliefs. Banning “blasphemous” books shields deities, dogmas and political demigods from criticism and scrutiny. It quashes freedom of expression in order to maintain an illiberal peace.

Here’s a list of books that have been banned around the world for upsetting the status quo.

1. The Bible

Yes, the Bible is full of violence and raunchy sex scenes, but that’s not why it’s been banned in many countries. Across Central Asia, publishing, importing and distributing religious literature is restricted to prevent “extremism.” In Malaysia, Malay-language Bibles are prohibited outside the confines of churches to protect “national security.” In North Korea, possessing a Bible is illegal because, well, pretty much everything is banned there. Governments often monitor and restrict communities of believers they fear might challenge their rule. They do so by cutting off access to holy scripture and outlawing proselytization, all while pretending to champion freedom of religion or belief in their constitutions. Don’t believe the propaganda. Do keep an eye on Bible balloons dropping the Word of God into hostile territories.

2. The Da Vinci Code

Lebanon banned the Dan Brown thriller in 2004, not for its lack of literary merit but because Catholic leaders took issue with its fictional assertion that (spoiler alert!) Jesus married Mary Magdalene and fathered her child. “Those things are difficult for us to accept, even if it’s supposed to be fiction,” Father Abdou Abu Kasm, then-president of Lebanon’s Catholic Information Centre, told the BBC after the book was pulled from shelves. “Christianity is not about forgiveness to the point of insulting Jesus Christ.” MARCH, a Lebanese civil rights group, lists The Da Vinci Code, Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl and Sophie’s Choice among dozens of books that have been banned in Lebanon.

3. Harry Potter

In 2002, the United Arab Emirates’ Ministry of Education and Youth went full Voldemort, banning the wizard from corrupting young minds on the grounds that J.K. Rowling’s tale ran “contrary to Islamic values.” In the same decision, 25 additional books were banned from use in private schools, including George Orwell’s “Animal Farm,” which features haram talking pigs in a cautionary tale against authoritarianism.

4. The Quran

The Muslim holy book is banned and restricted in many of the same places and for many of the same reasons that limit the Bible’s reach. In 2013, the Russian city of Novorossiysk banned a specific translation of the Quran for allegedly promoting extremism and inciting violence, a move that placed the text on a nationwide blacklist. Offended Muslims should take some solace in Russia’s commitment to equal opportunity discrimination. Also banned are the works of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard; Turkish theologian Said Nursi; several Catholic, Jehovah’s Witness and Falun Gong publications; and a diverse range of other “extremist” religious texts.

5. Fifty Shades of Grey

Ultimate nanny state Malaysia isn’t into role play or BDSM. The country’s Home Ministry banned the Fifty Shades trilogy and first film earlier this year on the grounds that they were “likely to be prejudicial to morality,” whatever that means. Malaysia also banned Canadian author Irshad Manji’s Allah, Liberty and Love in 2012 for being contrary to Islamic principles, raiding a bookstore and confiscating copies before the ban was even set.

6. The King Never Smiles

Where men are considered gods, governments and societies don’t take kindly to their “blasphemous” portrayals. This unauthorized biography of Thailand’s King Bhumibol Adulyadej was banned before it could be published there in 2006. Thailand’s increasingly strict “lèse majesté” laws shield the deified monarch from criticism and his government from accountability. A 2011 biography of Mahatma Gandhi was banned in Gujarat state for suggesting that he may have had a homosexual relationship, and a 1984 biography of Pakistan founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah was banned for claiming he ate pork and drank alcohol, both forbidden in Islam. That ban was later overturned.

7. The Satanic Verses

Most novelists don’t make it to four books. Most fourth novels don’t ignite global outrage and inspire assassination attempts. Salman Rushdie accomplished both with The Satanic Verses, his 1988 novel partly inspired by the Prophet Muhammad. The “blasphemous” book was banned in India, burned in the U.K. and led Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini to issue a fatwa calling for Rushdie’s death. Threats of violence surrounding the controversy still plague Rushdie. In 2012 he pulled out of a speaking gig at the Jaipur literature festival amid renewed calls for his assassination.

8. Into the River

Ted Dawe’s 2012 novel won critical acclaim and several young-adult fiction awards in New Zealand, back when it was still available in bookstores. The country’s Film and Literature Board of Review placed an interim ban on Into the River earlier this month after the conservative Christian group Family First called for a permanent age restriction to be placed on the novel, citing its sexually explicit content. Selling or supplying the book remains illegal until the age classification issue is resolved, a stalemate that’s contributed to a spike in global interest — censorship backfiring at its best.

Also on HuffPost:

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

5 of the Best Book Storage Solutions on the Web

In case you hadn't heard, we launched a brand-new DIY community Called The Snug (thesnug.com)! At The Snug, we spotlight top-trending DIY ideas, handpicked by the editors of our parent company Time Inc. and DIYers like you!

Clamp Books in Place



We love this idea from This Old House (and you did, too!) and think it's a super chic (and simple) way to manage your book storage.

Industrial Pipe Shelf

This is great for a Loft space!

Floating Book Shelves



These are great if you're looking to add to an existing gallery wall or give your room some texture.

Balance Book Shelf



Because who doesn't need more balance in their life (and their book storage)?

Custom Wooden Book Rack



The way libraries used to store newspapers, so #retro and perfect book storage for small spaces.

Looking for more storage solutions? Visit The Snug for the best storage solutions on the Web, curated by YOU!

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Long Live Banned Books Week!

It's Banned Books Week -- but no one even bans books anymore. So what's the point?

That was the upshot of "Banned Books Week Is a Crock," a September 28 Slate piece by Ruth Graham. She argued that Banned Books Week "traffics in fear-mongering over censorship, when in fact the truth is much sunnier: There is basically no such thing as a 'banned book' in the United States in 2015."

With book banning over, she writes that "instead of hand-wringing about a nonexistent wave of censorship, let's celebrate the obvious: The books won."

So is the fight against censorship really just one for the history books? As proud sponsors of Banned Books Week, we certainly think not.



Graham is right that there's an important distinction between "banning" a book and filing a challenge to remove a work from a school library, a classroom or a summer reading list. The latter, she argues, is "part of a reasonable local conversation about public education." She adds that "even if you're firmly opposed to 'banning books' -- and I am! -- it's hard to argue that parents should have no right to weigh in on what their children read at school."

But this is a straw man argument. There is no serious argument that a parent should have no such rights. Promoting the freedom to read is more subtle, but no less important. Of course a parent has a right to express an opinion about a book, and even to ask for an alternative assignment for his or her child. But that parent has no right to determine what other students -- the children of other parents -- can read in class or in a school library. That is the goal of most book challenges. Even when a book challenge fails, it may still result in the removal of a book, sometimes temporarily, sometimes not.

Graham thinks several hundred cases a year isn't much to get worked up about. But those numbers are a very conservative estimate of the problem. As Chris Finan of the American Booksellers for Free Expression pointed out recently, the American Library Association believes that as many as 80 percent of challenges go unreported. A Freedom of Information Act research project in two states confirmed this; the vast majority of formal challenges are never revealed publicly.

And what about librarians or school officials who seek to steer clear of controversy by avoiding potentially controversial books altogether? There is no doubt that this kind of chilling effect is real. A survey of over 600 librarians released by the School Library Journal in 2009 revealed that 70 percent reported that the possible reaction from parents affected their decisions not to buy a book. About half of librarians reported that they had gone through a formal challenge, and 20 percent of them revealed that the experience affected their book-buying decisions going forward.

So there's strong evidence that there are far more challenges than are reported, and that those challenges affect institutions over the long run. Self-censorship, as the School Library Journal put it, is "a dirty secret that no one in the profession wants to talk about."

Over at BookRiot, librarian Michelle Anne Schingler recalls how even a challenge in a Georgia public library that 'lost' managed to create serious problems. "Libraries are a marketplace of ideas," she writes, "and if they're going to operate in a truly democratic fashion, all ideas should be represented." And that means making sure that voices considered unpopular or marginal are well-represented on the shelves. While things are in many ways better now than they have been in the past, she makes an essential point: "'Better than before' seems to me an inadequate measuring stick when we're discussing the availability of books, particularly in our schools and libraries."

And how did these free speech victories come about in the first place? And Huffington Post's Maddie Crum points out that Banned Books Week exists to "remind readers that information hasn't always been free." Indeed, if one really wants to argue that book banning is no longer a problem, we might want to give credit where credit is due: "Collectively, yes, the side of free information is on a serious upswing. But this isn't a naturally occurring phenomenon- as evidenced by our storied history of censorship, and the still-waging war against free expression happening elsewhere in the world." As Chris Finan put it: "Whatever the actual number of challenges, we can be sure that there would be many more if there weren't people all over the country resisting efforts to ban books. Booksellers have joined teachers, librarians, parents, students, and other concerned citizens in fighting back." That's exactly what NCAC's Kids' Right to Read Project does on a daily basis - fights to keep books in schools and libraries.

And consider the impact of book challenges beyond the world of books. They are a key part of a larger cultural battle over the control over what kids see, learn and create. Parental anxieties, disproportionately focused on the perceived dangers of contemporary culture, lead to attacks on "inappropriate" books-but do not stop there. They generate calls to police students' online speech, constrain sex education to "abstinence-only" and cut "controversial" material from high school art and theater.

Placing children and adolescents in a protective bubble is not only impossible, it is dangerous. To grow into thoughtful, mature and informed adults, young people need the freedom to explore the world in all its complexity.

So if Banned Books Week is about celebrating our victories, then by all means let's do so -- this week, and every other. And realize that there are more battles to come.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

New Book Argues Iran Deal Makes War Inevitable

Best-selling author and Harvard Professor Emeritus, Alan Dershowitz was recently on my radio program, the Price of Business, to discuss his latest book, "The Case Against the Iran Deal: How Can We Stop Iran from Getting Nukes?."

Dershowitz, who has long sat very close to the seats of power both domestically and with those in Israel, unleashed a scathing attack against the Obama administration for its naive decision to pursue such a deal.

Dershowitz argued that decades of isolation has actually worked very well at preventing Iran from getting nuclear bombs, and maintaining that is far more affordable than the billions the regime will receive through this nuclear deal. I asked the author, "is not the only thing that has stood between Iran and nuclear weapons money and doesn't this agreement make obtaining the money a reality for it?" He said, "absolutely," and went on to explain that the status quo is much better than entering into another agreement with a nation with a history of violating such things.

In fact, Israel has a record of violating 20 agreements with the West to date and there is no reason to believe it will improve its record going forward. He went on to say that, with the perimeters established by this deal, Iran may not likely have to cheat. Certain areas in Iran are off limits to inspectors and those that are subject to such require weeks of notification. Under these rules Iran can simply play a dangerous shell game of moving material and technology around the country, potentially leading to the fast track development of nuclear arms before the ink on the deal even dries.

He went on to describe the relationship between Iran, Israel, and the United States. He pointed out that the government of Iran believes that Israel would not exist or, at least, continue to exist, if it were not for the United States. That is why Muslim extremists describe Israel as the "little Satan" and the United States as the "big Satan," he said. If you remove the US -- "big Satan" -- out of the picture, there would be no problem with Israel, because it could not exist in such a dangerous world without the United States.

Dershowitz went on to discuss the fact that the safety of the US hangs in the balance. I pointed out in our conversation that roughly half of the world's Jewish population is in Israel and half is in the US, remove Israel (which would certainly be an objective with nuclear weapons, based on Iran's historical rhetoric) and then the new target would be the US itself. He agreed entirely and believes that the safety of the United States and much of the world is linked to the survival of Israel.

So we discussed this existential threat to Israel and I asked him what would Israel do if this deal goes into effect. Dershowitz argues that Israel is not as short sighted as the US and would be ready to do whatever was necessary to protect itself. He went on to say that such included Israel attacking Iran before the Islamic nation had a bomb developed. When asked why he thought they would do such, he stated that "I have known these leaders for decades" (including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu) and there is no way they would stand by and allow Iran to create the means to wipe out Israel. He went on to say that Israel has seen 6 million of its own people wiped out before in relatively recent history in the Holocaust and has no intention to ever allow that to happen again.

Dershowitz argues that policy makers have bit into a "bill of goods" which states that "any deal is better than no deal." Historically, the objective of Iran to eliminate the barriers between it and a nuclear arsenal, and simple common sense proves that this deal makes the US and the rest of the world decidedly less safe.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Word Origin Comics: Snobs of the World Unite! You Have Nothing to Lose But Your Disdain

Is that your nose that's up in the air? Could you possibly be a snob?


"People who hold important positions in society are commonly labeled "somebodies," and their inverse "nobodies"-both of which are, of course, nonsensical descriptors, for we are all, by necessity, individuals with distinct identities and comparable claims on existence. Such words are nevertheless an apt vehicle for conveying the disparate treatment accorded to different groups. Those without status are all but invisible: they are treated brusquely by others, their complexities trampled upon and their singularities ignored."

― Alain de Botton, Status Anxiety

For Example:

"Marcia was silent a moment. Then a sort of softer gleam came into her angry eye.

"Tell me some more about her," she said.

Adele clapped her hands.

"Ah, that's splendid," she said. "You're beginning to feel kinder. What we would do without our Lucia I can't imagine. I don't know what there would be to talk about."

"She's ridiculous!" said Marcia relapsing a little.

"No, you mustn't feel that," said Adele. "You mustn't laugh at her ever. You must just richly enjoy her."

"She's a snob!" said Marcia, as if this was a tremendous discovery.

"So am I: so are you: so are we all," said Adele. "We all run after distinguished people like--like Alf and Marcelle. The difference between you and Lucia is entirely in her favour, for you pretend you're not a snob, and she is perfectly frank and open about it. Besides, what is a duchess like you for except to give pleasure to snobs? That's your work in the world, darling; that's why you were sent here. Don't shirk it, or when you're old you will suffer agonies of remorse. And you're a snob too. You liked having seven--or was it seventy?--Royals at your dance."

"Well, tell me some more about Lucia," said Marcia, rather struck by this ingenious presentation of the case.

"Indeed I will: I long for your conversion to Luciaphilism. Now to-day there are going to be marvellous happenings..."

― E.F. Benson, Lucia in London


For the source of that snobbery, read on...






Follow Larry Paros @
insomanywords.net

Take words with Larry @
http://twitter.com/wordswithlarry
http://ift.tt/1u9BRWu
http://ift.tt/1u9BRWA

More fun with words by Larry
bawdylanguage.com

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

George R.R. Martin, HBO Deny 'Game Of Thrones' Movie Rumors

Earlier this week, British tabloid The Daily Star reported that A Song of Ice and Fire series writer George R.R. Martin had confirmed the long-running rumors that a "Game of Thrones" movie was in the works. Exciting, right? 

Except for one thing: It's not true. 

In an email to The Huffington Post, Martin's assistant said that the statements attributed to the author in the Daily Star article -- allegedly made at an Emmy party -- are "not direct quotes." 

Martin also sent HuffPost a statement directly addressing the movie rumors. "There's been talk about it," he said. "I'd love to see one, but nothing is decided."

Martin affirmed the falseness of the rumors in a comment on his LiveJournal page as well, saying, "No one is working on any movie just now. And if there was a movie, it would not be about Robert's Rebellion."

A representative from HBO agreed, writing, in an email, that the Daily Star story was "not at all correct." 

That all sounds quite definitive -- at least for now. Martin's statements, especially, seem to leave the door open for a movie at some point in the future. 

Part of the reason rumors about a possible "Game of Thrones" movie have been so persistent is that there was a long-held belief that a film could somehow help skirt the problem of the show plot overtaking that of the book series. The idea seemed to be that if the show gets ahead of the books, HBO could stop the show, leaving the thread of the book storyline to be picked up several years later, after the release of the last book, on the big screen. Yet unless Martin releases his next book, The Winds of Winter, in the next few months, the show plot will overtake the book plot in Season 6, which is being filmed right now.

Moreover, everything HBO executives have said so far indicates that they're committed to airing at least seven -- and quite possibly eight -- seasons of the show. So it seems more likely that if there is a movie -- a big if -- it would focus on some other story from the world of the books. Apparently, though, not Robert's Rebellion. 

Also on HuffPost:

For a constant stream of entertainment news and discussion, follow HuffPost Entertainment on Viber.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.