Banned books

[liesl]

I'm sorry, I didn't get the point.
Why would that be the reason why we should ban Harry Potter?
I might be mistaken, but don't we have to provide an evidential proof to ban something (in this case, books)? The text above wasn't even in the book. How could we ban the book for the reason that wasn't even the content of the book?

In the United Kingdom religious figures, in particular the archbishop of canterbury, have called for a ban of the Harry Potter books for their glorification or witchcraft and wizardary and the abject fear that the texts will encourage readers to take an interest into the dark arts and satanism.

A few years back the first Harry Potter film was shown on a popular terrestrial channel at christmas time prompting the archbishop of canterbury, during his new years speech, to broadcast his digust of showing heathen activities on Christ's birthday.

The Catholic Church, and other religions, are extremely powerful and object very strongly to witchcraft and other such activities that oppose their religious messages. In my opinion i'm suprised that Harry Potter hasn't been successfully banned.

[Tsar]

In the United Kingdom religious figures, in particular the archbishop of canterbury, have called for a ban of the Harry Potter books for their glorification or witchcraft and wizardary and the abject fear that the texts will encourage readers to take an interest into the dark arts and satanism.

A few years back the first Harry Potter film was shown on a popular terrestrial channel at christmas time prompting the archbishop of canterbury, during his new years speech, to broadcast his digust of showing heathen activities on Christ's birthday.

The Catholic Church, and other religions, are extremely powerful and object very strongly to witchcraft and other such activities that oppose their religious messages. In my opinion i'm suprised that Harry Potter hasn't been successfully banned.

Its probably because 1) The Catholic Church doesn't control the government, and 2) The books are written by a British author. I have read the Harry Potter books, and I don't think they should be banned. If someone wants to read something, they should be able to read it.

[cuppajoe_9]

I'm sorry, I didn't get the point.
Why would that be the reason why we should ban Harry Potter?
I might be mistaken, but don't we have to provide an evidential proof to ban something (in this case, books)? The text above wasn't even in the book. How could we ban the book for the reason that wasn't even the content of the book?
Had someone ever thought that the text had been invented only to discredit Rowling? You know, invented by someone who obviously threatened (well, perhaps jealous is as more suitable word) by Rowling's success, or her popularity, or her fantasy, or her talent... Who knows?

Well, that's all...

I certainly don't think that the HP books should be banned, and neither does the author of that summary, which was intended as a satire. Rowling's books were challenged because certain congenitally insane parents were concerned that they were promoting witchcraft or satanism or something equally ridiculous. It's an unfortunate truth that many people who seek to take books off the shelf are content to read them by title only.

[cuppajoe_9]

And there is something else I do not understand. While in a library it is comparatively easy for the librarian to keep children from books that are not suitable for their age (to me the only reason why a book should be kept from a child), there are many children watching TV oder surfing the internet without restrictions. Have a look at US serials and movies. There is such a lot of sex and crime which is actually watched even by young children that I wonder why parents go for comparatively harmless books. Can anyone explain?

If I had to guess, I would say that the parents who are letting their children watch TV unrestricted are not the same ones who are beating a trail to J.K. Rowling's door with pitch-forks and torches.

That raises an interesting question about TV censorship, though. The sex and violence is certainly on the upswing but, at least the last time I watched TV, the violence was far more prominent than the sex. Sex was, at worst, alluded to in a sitcom in a way in which a young child would be unlikely to catch, whereas the homicides were just shown. Apparently there's a list of TV decency standards somehwere that looks like this:

Things that are not harmful if a child sees them on television:

The willfull and sadistic destruction of one human being by another.

Things that are harmful if a child sees them on television:

Breasts.

[Nossa]

As regards to the original question of the thread and the poll consequently..I believe that it'll be rather silly to ban books, just cuz they don't happen to fit in the 'standards'. I mean what ARE the standards of a book in order to be published? what's the point of writing, if your point of view and ideas are going to be banned. I, personally, ran into many books that really angered me, and made me throw the book away, but that will NEVER mean that I'd just ban them, cuz they happen to disagree with me. However, I believe there should be a certain 'red-line' when it comes to certain issues, such as religions and beliefs. I know that many here might (will probably) disagree with me, but I know first hand that religion to many people (including me and where I come from) is something that's considered the essense of thier being, the most important thing in thier lives, you insult or take away that, you'll be faced with waves of anger that might lead to unfortunate incidents, and it DID happen before actually.
About the N-words and likes of it, I don't believe any book should be banned for mentioning this words, as long as it's a classical book, meaning that, the N word no longer exsists, and it's only fair to say that it DID exsist strongly in previous ages and certuries, not now though, so it'll be very unfair not to enjoy certain great books, just cuz the writer happened to use a word, that was very much in use at that time.
Anyone who'd start reading such books, is believed to be grown up enough to decided for him/herself, if you don't like the book, don't buy it!

[Dark Muse]

I always think it is amusing to see the lists of books that had once been banned.

So what banned books have you read?

For anyone who is curruious here is one of the banned books list I have visisted

http://www.forbiddenlibrary.com

[kelby_lake]

I've read Lolita and Fahrenheit 451, which is apparantly banned.

Banning books is stupid. It's done by ignorant people who cannot distinguish between crassness/inappropriacy and art.
'There is no such thing as an immoral book, only badly written ones'

Anyway, if we're going to ban books, ban all of Mamet's 'coz he's just crass and pointless.

[caillion]

I don't know if this has been mentioned earlier or not but here's one of my favorite fun facts about censorship: Fahrenheit 451 was originally put on shelves after publishers had edited out any naughty four letter words - did they not see the irony in censoring a book... about censorship?? Also, Anne Frank was once banned here in the states for being "too depressing". Not kidding. I make it a point to read most challenged books. One I just read to a 6 year old - the wonderful Lorax by Dr. Seuss.

[curlyqlink]

For anyone who is curruious here is one of the banned books list I have visisted

http://www.forbiddenlibrary.com

It's interesting to note where a lot of these books were banned, and by whom. Books that have been "banned" from a school classroom don't fit my criterion of being banned, and I've always felt that bookstore "banned books" displays have a strong element of crying wolf. There are books that little kids shouldn't read, and there are even more books that little kids shouldn't be required to read as part of their public school education.

There's a huge difference between keeping a particular book out of the classroom and forbidding adults to buy or possess the book. The latter is the only thing I consider genuine censorship. Fortunately, it's a civil liberty that hasn't been taken away from us in the U.S. (yet!) If I want to read Hitler's ravings or the Marquis de Sade's pornography, I can. (I can safely state that I was convinced by neither.)

I, personally, ran into many books that really angered me, and made me throw the book away, but that will NEVER mean that I'd just ban them, cuz they happen to disagree with me. However, I believe there should be a certain 'red-line' when it comes to certain issues, such as religions and beliefs. I know that many here might (will probably) disagree with me, but I know first hand that religion to many people (including me and where I come from) is something that's considered the essense of thier being, the most important thing in thier lives, you insult or take away that, you'll be faced with waves of anger that might lead to unfortunate incidents

Who is to constitute this "religion police"? Is Richard Dawkins to be banned, or Voltaire, or Salman Rushdie? The latter certainly aroused a wave of anger-- he's still under sentence of death for his "blasphemies". Religion may well be the most important thing in the lives of some religious people, just as race is the most important part of the identity of some people, or feminism. So why don't they deserve equal protection, and books containing the N-word and books that objectify women ought to be banned.

I understand how someone can feel their religion has been insulted by a book. The remedy is obvious: they shouldn't read the book. I fail utterly to understand how a book can "take away that".

[Dark Muse]

I believe there should be a certain 'red-line' when it comes to certain issues, such as religions and beliefs. I know that many here might (will probably) disagree with me, but I know first hand that religion to many people (including me and where I come from) is something that's considered the essense of thier being, the most important thing in thier lives, you insult or take away that, you'll be faced with waves of anger that might lead to unfortunate incidents

I take my own spirituality and beliefs very seriously, but I do not expect everyone else to. If someone wanted to write something scathing about what I believe it is not going to personally affect me, or take anything away from me or what I believe.

If I do not like it I simply will not read it. But if I agree or not, they still have the right to write it I think.

Really I think people just need to be less sensitive over other people not viewing things in the same way they do.

No one forces anyone to read a book or listen to an idea if one does not wish to.

As far as unfortunate consequences, I am sure the person writing it knows there may be a personal risk and they have the right to take that risk for themselves if they choose to do so.

[Niamh]

Oooooooo! John McGaherns book The Dark is back on shelves!

[kelby_lake]

However, I believe there should be a certain 'red-line' when it comes to certain issues, such as religions and beliefs. I know that many here might (will probably) disagree with me, but I know first hand that religion to many people (including me and where I come from) is something that's considered the essense of thier being, the most important thing in thier lives, you insult or take away that, you'll be faced with waves of anger that might lead to unfortunate incidents, and it DID happen before actually.

If anyone thinks their religion will be damaged and destroyed by a book, then they don't have a very strong faith.

[NickAdams]

Why promote literacy if you want want to be told what to think!

[dfloyd]

In the 1960s, my community in Ohio banned Henry Miller's 'Tropic of Cancer'.
This was before the internet so I had to call on friends in seversl different states until I found one who could purchase the book. I finally got the book and read it. It wasn't that good, but I just couldn't stand someone telling me what I could or couldn't read. It was a hard bound copy, and it is one of the few books I actually lost. I think I loaned it to somebody and they never returned it. If someone with a pristine mind thinks 'Huckleberry Finn' or 'Catcher in the Rye' is racist or obscene, ask them to read Henry Miller. They may go into a catotonic state.

[Zee.]

You can't say that banning books is a negative thing but also believe that the banning of a particular type of book is okay, or that writing in some instances, should be regulated.

If you don't like it, don't read it. To some people, the pure existence of someone may be offensive. It doesn't mean you should kill them because of it.

Though you may think some books are banned, you need to decide if the act of banning them is acceptable or not, in general.

I think it's a form of suppression. Makes me sick.