The Editorial
By Scot Rhoads
Thanks to Lew Price
This is our first issue not to feature an Oldest Magick article. On this unfortunate occasion, I give my special thanks to Lew Price for a great series. Although it was at times over my head, I learned much from each article and they have changed my perspective. I hope that our readers have enjoyed his work as much as I, and that he will be able to write for us again. I also refer you all to his unclassified ad in the back and his catalog of flutes and panpipes.
Oops Again
As if to prove that my editing annoys writers as well as readers (see the Letters section), I have occasion to announce that David Cherubim was not responsible for the editing of his work in our last issue. Unless writers ask me not to edit, this is the case. (He did so, long ago, but I neglected to make a note. Sorry!)
John Wayne Never Healed Anyone
Recently I read an interesting suggestion on a computer bulletin board that we should work to eliminate beliefs that harm society. While this sounds like a good idea, I don't like it. One obvious problem is deciding which beliefs have to go. Even if we have the most objective and benevolent demigod making the decision, how can we be sure it's correct? After all, this sort of thinking has lead to some of the most appalling behavior throughout history.
Also, we lack the perspective to be sure which beliefs are problems. As with the insect eradication programs of the `50's and `60's, we may discover we have eliminated something desirable, or dangerously unbalanced things. A painful lesson is the destruction of Native American society. We are now learning how badly we need beliefs that were anathema to the 19th Century U.S. Who's to say what we might miss in the future.
Still, what about the Thugs (Kali worshippers who ritually murdered and robbed) or our own Branch Davidians? Should it be OK for them to kill or break our weapons laws because they believe? No, that would be a distortion. Just because we leave beliefs alone doesn't mean we must allow any associated actions. I do say the Thugs should have been allowed to believe in killing for Kali—but I also agree they shouldn't be allowed to do it. David Koresh can believe he's Christ if he wants to, but that doesn't excuse purchasing illegal arms.
How then, do I differ? Admittedly, I don't suggest much of a change in behavior. I do suggest a change in attitude. We do not need to control people's beliefs. We need to decide only what actions harm society and control them. That change in mind set takes some of the fear out of the horror of living with people who think differently than we do. More important, it addresses only the specific problem and leaves the rest alone. Thugs, for instance, would still be able to offer the rest of the world the mystery of their ecstatic worship of Kali—just without the killing. And the Davidians will, I hope, be allowed the chance to work through the burden of their own beliefs in their own way.
One of the things I like about this country is that you can legally burn its flag. That's a major reason I don't have any desire to do so. We are allowed to think destructive things, just not allowed to act on them. In the USSR, not just acts, but thoughts were illegal. Now that the pressure of the police state is gone, look at the ethnic tensions resurfacing. They were never healed. The U.S. may still have serious problems, too, but (I feel) things are unquestionably improving in the long term. The former citizens of the USSR will have to restart the healing process from the point force tried to stamp out the negativity.
When we attack someone's beliefs directly, we attack the foundations of that person's being. When we deny an action, it is less of an attack. Certainly, this is subject to abuse and demands great care and circumspection, but at least it is possible to keep the damage to a minimum.
When people are denied an action that they believe in, the long-term tendency is to change beliefs to fit. In that sense, this is still an attack on beliefs, but it is more precise and gentle. Since people tend to change their beliefs as little as they can get away with, this technique preserves as much of the original beliefs as possible. More important, by challenging as little as possible of a person's overall belief system, you avoid much of their resistance. That is why I feel that restricting actions is not only kinder than restricting beliefs, but also more effective in the long-term.
But why is it so easy to attack beliefs? Because we each have our own pet beliefs that (for good or ill) we want to see the world share. There is a dark desire to stamp out others' beliefs so that, once they're gone, we can be Right. If we focus on eliminating that action in ourselves, we can heal the negative belief that we must attack other beliefs. I hope you agree that this would be good for everyone.
Blessed Be | 
