I choose not to participate

[Don]

As with many of the people here, I have several "live." In another field I am a well-known author on such topics as the Kabalah, which has, over the past few years, hit the news because of the involvement by some famous people such as Madonna, Demi Moore, Roseanne, etc.

Because of this, I am frequently invited to speak on a variety of mystical topics at events all over the world. When I have agreed to participate, I have always kept my word--until yesterday.

I agreed to be part of a larger event almost six months ago. The event, called a "ball," has been held in Ohio for several years. On the website of the sponsors there are videos of dances, wedding, and other celebrations taking place in previous years.

Over the past few days, however, I had heard about a change. Now there was a political purpose to the ball, including a ritual that included the effigies of two people who were accused by the founder of the "ball" with being child abusers, although they had never been legally accused, tried, or convicted. Part of the ritual was to include people who had been abused heaping their anger and rage onto the effigies which would then be ritually "cast out."

Now I am unequivocally opposed to any sort of mental, physical, or emotion abuse, including spousal abuse, parental abuse, child abuse, etc. So I understand and sympathize with the general purpose of this rite. But the problem is with the specifics.

People in any sort of ritual--weddings, graduations, religious rituals, etc.--are often in some sort of trance state. If you merely bring up deep emotional experiences among participants the result is not therapeutic and can actually induce abreactions. I have experienced such events in various rituals and even in practical classes that I have participated in or taught. As a trained professional, I knew how to immediately help anyone abreacting so that it could quickly be dealt with and even turned into a positive therapeutic experience.

I asked if they had mental health professionals there who were prepared to deal with such possibilities. I did not receive a clear, positive answer.

So it was my opinion that not only was the politics inappropriate for a "ball," but that the planned ritual could be deleterious to some participants. As a result, for the first time ever, I withdrew from participating in an event of this type.

What do people here think? Should I have kept to my agreement to participate? Was I right to withdraw since the purpose changed after I had agreed to participate? Am I right in being worried about what might happen to some participants?

What do you think?

[Connie]

Obviously, if you're following your heart you're doing the right thing. I'm sure you've weighed the possible repercussions, and you still want to do what you want to do (or not do as the case may be)--that's good. Having strengh of your convictions is a good thing! My question is, how far in the future is the event? If they have plenty of time to find a replacement speaker, then don't give it a second thought. If it's SOON, as in a few days, then I don't know. I'd have to weigh that into my decision. Also, how did you find out about the change in purpose? Did they (the planners) notify you in some way, or did you find out roundabout-like? If they did not see fit to notify you, then that's more evidence that you shouldn't worry about them.

As far as the risk to the attendees, you expressed your concerns to the planners. Perhaps they'll take your advice!

[Simon]

But Don, what if you volunteered to be the expert who can deal with unwanted abreactions.
Wouldn't that be a win-win situation?

[Don]

Connie, the event is at the end of October. BTW, I was only one of four featured guests. As of this morning, all four have withdrawn.

I found out about it through a roundabout way through people I know.

Simon, if I stayed, I'd be condoning all of their politics including their actions against people who were never tried, never given the opportunity to defend themselves, etc.

[Poodle]

I don't understand. You are a trained professional yet you would want mental health people there? Confused :confused:

[Don]

I am just one person. I couldn't work with a dozen or more people who need individual help simultaneously. And I thought they would understand the concept of "mental health professionals."

[Don]

I was not the only person invited to this event. There were three other authors who were also invited. All have now declined to attend for the reasons I stated above.

The result: Even though the person putting this on changed the event after we agreed to do it (thus voiding the contract), he now accused us of breaking the contract and supporting child abuse, racism, and homophobia!

I do hate this political garbage.

[skip]

Don,

I believe you did the right thing under the circumstances described.

I also believe it may be possible to do something far better, than just the right thing.

If the effigies were changed to be generic, not specific people, and if there were sufficent competent help available, would you believe the rite to be appropriate and benificial?

If so why not get together with the other authors and negotiate with the organizer and both help educate him and the entire group of participants in the safe and ethical use of the 'art'?

In other words, yes you did right, and there is more, greater, potential right that might be done, by you and others using your 'celebrity', authority, to influence for the best.

It isnt necessarily 'over' at this juncture.

cheers,

skip

[Simple Guy]

Hi Don,

That you chose to withdraw from the event speaks well to your
character. Also, if you were to participate, in light of the situation as you
described it, cognitive dissonance could change your personality
in ways you view as undesirable.

[Don]

Hi, Skip.

I brought forward my concerns and the person in charge absolutely refused to consider any changes. He has a thing about the people he considers child abusers (he hasn't even talked to their daughter who is easily available) and insists that they must be "sacrificed in effigy" and is unwilling to make any changes.

[Poodle]

Sorry Don. I did not notice that it was YOU! Must have been in trance and had a negative hallucination. One can deal with 10,000 plus abreactions simultaneously though.

It would appear that the event changed, you did not. You are just unwilling to participate in the "new" event. If this event is what I think it may be, there could be nasty legal repercussions.

Sorry for the misread!! Please forgive. Pood

[Don]

I regret that while I can, and have, dealt with two or three abreactions simultaneously, I do not have the skills to work with dozens, let alone 10,000+, simultaneously. Or maybe I do, I just don't know it. :)

Yes, there could be some "nasty legal repercussions," so others who have withdrawn from the event and I are working on a proactive statement to show that the people putting on the event, by unilaterally changing the event after we agreed to do it, voided the agreements they had with us and cost us money. We are also holding back on some other approaches to this.

It's so silly...

[Jack]

I think you know the answer to your own question, Don.
You are entitled to withdraw from any event to which you have
a moral, ethical or legal objection. Particularly so if the theme or
substance of the event is changed after your acceptance.

Did it myself a few years ago because the keynote speaker was
changed from an genuinely brilliant person to an idiot with views
to which no sane person could ever subscribe. By speaking at the
same conference I would have in some small way, legitimised his
views and that was not acceptable. Even being in the same building
was not acceptable. I have doubts about being on the same planet.

Jack

[Soren K (existing)]

So it was my opinion that not only was the politics inappropriate for a "ball," but that the planned ritual could be deleterious to some participants. As a result, for the first time ever, I withdrew from participating in an event of this type.

What do people here think? Should I have kept to my agreement to participate? Was I right to withdraw since the purpose changed after I had agreed to participate? Am I right in being worried about what might happen to some participants?

What do you think?

Seems you doubt it was the right thing to do. Were your motives the protection of your professional reputation? You gave up your opportunity to reflect your concerns to the people you feared would be illed. Yet, you worry about them... So they will be illed anyway, despite your withdrawal, but not in your name...(?) For all intents and purposes, ultimately, did you convey your disapproval to the world? Or, more particularly, to those it mattered? Could you have? What reasons did you give? Three associates sit in a bar. Associate one is senior and associates two and three look up to him because of his position of authority and status. However, associate one pipes up several stories which are ipso facto have racist implications suggesting that anyone who disagrees is weak and foolish. Associate two half smiles and nods, internally he despises what associate one has to say but he's afraid of the consequences of challenging his superior who seems to have some pretty fixed views praising certain attitudes which associate two does not share, and condemning certain attitudes which associate two holds. Associate two, hoping to avoid any further affiliation to such attitudes makes his excuses and leaves. But by not challenging, he has given his consent. He's in a predicament. His associate is powerful and influential. He wants his approval, the fruits of his power and influence, so he avoids being negatively categorised in his powerful associates mind by refusing to be party to the racist storytales, and, well, fails to convey his disapproval, thereby showing consent, however minimal the expression.

Consider the same scenario with associate three as the first respondee. Associate two despises the views of his superior. He wants the fruits of his power and influence, but is not willing to sacrifice his principles. He makes a stand against these stories and rubbishes them as rightly ignorant from a background which places respect for human existence over and above that of any tribe, creed or social identity. Okay you get the idea.


... so

Why do you doubt you did the right thing?

Did associate two save the belittled ethnic group? Perhaps not. Did associate three? Perhaps not. But which associate do you prefer and why?

Continuing the case, modifying a little... think of scenario where either had the opportunity to report and express concerns to the people they had heard associate one rubbish. These persons were, the entire company, which included members of the board of the ethnic background being rubbished and also, some cleaners who had very obviously but without corroborative proof stolen from the company and also of the ethnic background associate one had ridiculed.

Associate two doesn't want to rock the boat, so bows out anyway.

Associate three has principles which he defends, but doesn't feel the need to go 'saving the world' because someone holds views he disagrees with. He figures those views will be his own undoing. Some people will get hurt along the way, but he should not be held to negative responsibility. He's defended his principles against a direct attempt on his consent against them.

Then associate three* who like associate three expressed his disapproval but who stands up. He's not up to the job of leading the thought of others effectively, but wants to make a stand, and when he makes his case he comes across a bit like a tell tale.

Associate three** is up to the job and commands the respect of his audience.

[Don]

Soren, my motives included:
1) that because I have some recognition in that community, by staying involved it would encourage people to participate in a very negative event.
2) that people would assume that I support that type of negative activity.

Yes, others and I told the people involved with the event that we did not think this aspect was a good idea and we informed them why. We communicated with them numerous times both via phone and via email. They refused to even consider modifications to their plans.

Yes, two of the other people who withdrew from participation and I have released a joint public statement to the community as to the reasons for our withdrawal.

No, we did not say nothing and then sort of slink away.

My associates and I do not doubt we did the right thing. However, we are not so egotistical to deny the possibility that there may be another side and something we missed.

[Poodle]

WELCOME BACK!!!! Ever so nice to have you join us again. Hugs, Anne

[Soren K (existing)]

My associates and I do not doubt we did the right thing. However, we are not so egotistical to deny the possibility that there may be another side and something we missed.

Interesting combination of sentences those, when you think about it... you don't doubt you did the right thing, but admit the possibly that you did the wrong thing... interesting that is... very interesting.

[Soren K (existing)]

It's July afterall.. and many good things happen in this very fine month. A number of birds will soon fly for the first time round here. Those that brought their lives will no longer feel the need to swoop down and attack innocent passers by for passing by. A short spell of sacrifice before the fall into competition. Is it love or instinct? Don't really know... really... But, I like the warm sun on my back and the sound of the waves rolling in, standing at the shore, just next to where the two worlds meet, the edge of one world at my feet, lapping back and forth. Marvellous to be at the edge of the universe and imagine a glimpse of the beyond, just out of reach, sensing its nearness but knowing it not possible to survive the leap for more than a few moments, before swimming back deep into the deep, with the comfort of the familiar.

x;)

[Terry]

Don, just came across this thread, and I agree with your decision for one simple reason. Each of us has a belief system that decides what is right and what is wrong. Yours doesn't have to be the same as anyone elses, but fact is, "If you don;t stand up for what is right according to your concience, who can ever trust you again"?

[Soren K (existing)]

"If you don;t stand up for what is right according to your concience, who can ever trust you again"?

Trust. A social paradise. Consicience, a social paradise maker?

[Soren K (existing)]

Each of us has a belief system that decides what is right and what is wrong.

With respect - Responsible fact? Or tardy prescription?

[Poodle]

Doing what one believes to be right and just is NEVER silly, at least in my model of the world. Without integrity, what do you have? It's really everyone's loss as that knowledge is very much in demand on the old text. I am sure you will find many more venues with whom to share your knowledge of the ancient ways.

Reminds me I found some interesting Mesmer information but right I can't remember where. Maybe after I sleep on it the mind will let the answer come back. I know when I read it, you were the first thing to pop into my mind...Don wants this. Be well, Pood