Banned books

[Lara]

The discussion about the use of the N-word in Heart of Darkness made me think of this topic. There have been those who consider themselves in higher power who think they have the right to censor information available to the public. What are your views on this? Does anyone think that anyone has the right to tell you that you can't read something? What about the Anarchist Cookbook? And hate literature?

Some stories I have read that have been challenged include:

Harry Potter - I believe this is because it contains 'witchcraft'.
I think these stories were wonderful fantasy stories. What about other fantasy literature, it's chock full of sorcery? Was it only challenged because our children are reading it? It is my understanding that the original story was intended for an adult audience.

The Bluest Eye - I am uncertain what the issue is here, I suppose because it has to do with racism. I enjoyed this story and found it to be educational. I thought Toni Morrison really showed feeling in this story.

Catcher in the Rye - I really don't know what the issue is on this one. I like this story. It makes a strong statement about growing and dealing with lifes issues.

I look forward to your thoughts and learning from those who have more knowledge on this subject than I.

[den]

The American Library Association has information on their website about

Banned Book Week, Sept. 25 - Oct. 2, 2004 ...

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bannedbooksweek.htm


I can't stand that organisations, governments etc. try to tell me what I can and can't read. I don't need someone else to `protect' me from reading something.

( And on a side-note but also highly alarming to me is the (American) Supreme Court's revisiting the Clinton era 1998 Child Online Protection Act (COPA). It will effectively make it illegal for any website to post textual or graphic material that is `harmful to minors', with sexual innuendo in the fore, but imagine all the interpretations out there of who deems what `offensive' material. Myriad websites will be open to prosecution if they aren't `dumbed down' to the lowest level of `controversial' material. This is more Big Brother censorship in the works... )

http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=15079&c=130



To me it's another sign that people aren't willing to take responsibility for their own children or the choices they make. They want the government to `protect' them and their children, and give them the choice to prosecute someone else for their own lack of guidance and education of themselves and their kids. grrrr....

If you don't want your child reading Catcher in the Rye, don't give it to them. If you don't want them cruising `adult' websites, don't let them. Deal with the consequences yourself.

[Demona]

<posted the same message twice> excuse moi...

[Demona]

Lara, here (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1342&highlight=Censorship) you can find some opinions on censorship in general. Perhaps it'll be interesting to you.



To me it's another sign that people aren't willing to take responsibility for their own children or the choices they make. They want the government to `protect' them and their children, and give them the choice to prosecute someone else for their own lack of guidance and education of themselves and their kids. grrrr....

To some extent I do agree with you, however, you can't expect everyone to have a pedagogical education (at least).


If you don't want your child reading Catcher in the Rye, don't give it to them. If you don't want them cruising `adult' websites, don't let them. Deal with the consequences yourself.

Again, one can give or not give this or that book to his/her kid or allow him/her to surf this or that site but naturally a person cannot even suppose how it will influence the child. However, parents are supposed (but that doesn't mean that they do) to know their children better and therefore decide themselves what to allow and what not to....rather than to leave it to someone else.
On the other hand, let's not underestimate kids - if they need something they will get it. You don't have to come and GIVE it to them. So if the books, for example, are freely available....I'm not sure that the authority of the parent will be taken into consideration.

[Lara]

Thanks Den, but I was already familiar with this website. I didn't know however, about the censorship online. I agree that it is up to parents to monitor what their children do, and yes, I am a parent. I think it is the parents responsibility to educate their children and offer as much guidance and support as possible, before they are teens. When they are teens, they are going to make their own choices, and I think parents have to give children the opportunity to do so. This is the philosophy I am gearing towards anyway. Perhaps I'll let you know how it goes several years down the road. LOL And allowing children to be online, parents have to realise that stuff is out there. Apparently a virus got ahold of one of my childs contacts in the address book and sent an email from this contact to several other contacts. It was a picture of a man doing it to a turkey (dead bird BTW). It was disgusting. It went to several children. I called all the parents as soon as I found out. My point is, this stuff is out there and sometimes it finds its way to our kids anyway.

Demona, I hadn't realised there was a similar thread lingering around. Thanks.

Another comment on the online issue. There is so much sexuality in movies, just on TV, our kids are exposed to it there too. Maybe they should just ban everything. :rolleyes:

[Isagel]

I just have to ask - how usual is it that schools ban books? In Sweden it is never done, and would be considered a very strange thing. Perhaps it is done in some very religious schools, but I don´t think I have heard of it.

[Kiwi Shelf]

It is very common to ban books in schools, and it can happen at any time. I know that in high school "To Kill a Mockingbird" was one of out selected readings, and this past year it was banned because it uses inappropriate language. I believe it is the "n" word. The funny thing is, I can't remember the book that it was replaced withs name, but my old English teacher told me that it is around the same lines and equally as inappropriate.

I live in Canada, though, this may differ in other countries

[crisaor]

"No hay ninguna lectura peligrosa. El mal nunca puede entrar por la mente cuando el corazón está sano".
- Jacinto Benavente

[amuse]

Pueden todos los gentes aqui leer espanol?
[No se si es corecto (como escribi ese) :)]
Va a tranduzcar luego por ellos? (just a thought...)

[crisaor]

Escribiste bien. :)
"There is no dangerous reading. Evil can never enter the mind if the heart is healthy."
- Jacinto Benavente

[hal9000]

Originally posted by crisaor
Escribiste bien. :)
"There is no dangerous reading. Evil can never enter the mind if the heart is healthy."
- Jacinto Benavente

Well said crisaor. And parents who have faith their own healthy mind, will have faith in the minds and hearts of their children.

What should in fact be banned is Channel One, reaching millions of highschool students (12 million a day-banned in NY). Channel One provides ten minutes of MTV type news and 2 minutes of junk ads in return for public school use of TV equipment. In effect, the public schools are delivering millions of students to this company. And that's just one example. The public school curriculum is sanitized so that it's not disruptive of corporate power.

[hal9000]

I know that in high school "To Kill a Mockingbird" was one of out selected readings, and this past year it was banned because it uses inappropriate language. I believe it is the "n" word.

To ban Harper Lee's deeply moving story - and her only book - is outrageously twisted and pure sophistry.

[Lara]

I also read To Kill a Mockingbird. Deeply moving is a great way to describe it Hal. What I don't understand is why the people who are banning such a book fail to comprehend the educational aspects of such a novel. It's like they're saying, this kind of stuff didn't really happen. It's a bad word and so we shouldn't allow awareness of it's previous existence. Again, one has to consider how the language in the story provides the strength and moving emotions that make the story. *sigh* I suppose there are just those people who don't appreciate literature the way we do.

[den]

From the website...


Between 1990 and 2000, of the 6,364 challenges reported to or recorded by the Office for Intellectual Freedom (see The 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books):

* 1,607 were challenges to “sexually explicit” material (up 161 since 1999);
* 1,427 to material considered to use “offensive language”; (up 165 since 1999)
* 1,256 to material considered “unsuited to age group”; (up 89 since 1999)
* 842 to material with an “occult theme or promoting the occult or Satanism,”; (up 69 since 1999)
* 737 to material considered to be “violent”; (up 107 since 1999)
* 515 to material with a homosexual theme or “promoting homosexuality,” (up 18 since 1999) and
* 419 to material “promoting a religious viewpoint.” (up 22 since 1999)

Other reasons for challenges included “nudity” (317 challenges, up 20 since 1999), “racism” (267 challenges, up 22 since 1999), “sex education” (224 challenges, up 7 since 1999), and “anti-family” (202 challenges, up 9 since 1999).

Please note that the number of challenges and the number of reasons for those challenges do not match, because works are often challenged on more than one ground.

Seventy-one percent of the challenges were to material in schools or school libraries.2 Another twenty-four percent were to material in public libraries (down two percent since 1999). Sixty percent of the challenges were brought by parents, fifteen percent by patrons, and nine percent by administrators, both down one percent since 1999).

1The Office for Intellectual Freedom does not claim comprehensiveness in recording challenges.

2Sometimes works are challenged in a school and school library.

[den]

See, I don't see what the problem is `promoting homosexuality' for instance, but it's not too far of a stretch to imagine who is speaking out against any book that would do this.

Also from same site:


The following books were the most frequently challenged in 2003:

1. Alice series, for sexual content, using offensive language, and being unsuited to age group.
2. Harry Potter series, for its focus on wizardry and magic.
3. "Of Mice and Men" by John Steinbeck, for using offensive language.
4. "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture" by Michael A. Bellesiles, for inaccuracy.
5. "Fallen Angels" by Walter Dean Myers, for racism, sexual content, offensive language, drugs and violence.
6. "Go Ask Alice" by Anonymous, for drugs.
7. "It's Perfectly Normal" by Robie Harris, for homosexuality, nudity, sexual content and sex education.
8. "We All Fall Down" by Robert Cormier, for offensive language and sexual content.
9. "King and King" by Linda de Haan, for homosexuality.
10. "Bridge to Terabithia" by Katherine Paterson, for offensive language and occult/satanism.



http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/challengedbanned/challengedbanned.htm

[den]

The same site's `100 Most Challenged Books' is a compelling list, but unfortunately they don't describe the reasons why each and every book is on the list. But again, it's not too difficult to surmise the reasons, given the particular books context and when it was written. Although, I haven't read them all so I don't know why some of them have been banned or challenged.


http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/100mostfrequently.htm


The `Book Burning' link is interesting too, going back to circa 200 B.C.E.

[amuse]

Please! I looked at "Go Ask Alice" not long ago because it was near the register and I haven't read it in two decades. It's an excellent book and moving (the girl dies, for goodness sakes), as to why NOT to use drugs. Are these people actually reading?

[hal9000]

Originally posted by Lara
Again, one has to consider how the language in the story provides the strength and moving emotions that make the story.

Nicely said.

[hal9000]

Originally posted by den
"...it's not too difficult to surmise the reasons, given the particular books context and when it was written."

True, but still, books like Flowers for Algernon, Slaughterhouse-Five, and
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer ?

[Dr Cynic]

Ahhh.... If only I could get a copy of The Satanic Verses:( :( :(

[den]

Flowers for Algernon ... I think the biggest `issues' some have with it is sexual content...

Ban To Kill a Mockingbird because it's not Politically Correct to use the `n' word anymore, hence, argument that it's inflammatory/ hateful language and racist.

amuse, yes people who ban books are reading, they're scanning for dirty words and looking for justification to back-up their own agendas. <oh aren't I the cynic huh? > You can't please everyone huh? Debate and criticism is healthy. I have my own values about things in my life, but I really don't try to impose them on others. Live and let live and all that.

[hal9000]

Originally posted by den
Flowers for Algernon ... I think the biggest `issues' some have with it is sexual content...

Ban To Kill a Mockingbird because it's not Politically Correct to use the `n' word anymore, hence, argument that it's inflammatory/ hateful language and racist.

amuse, yes people who ban books are reading, they're scanning for dirty words and looking for justification to back-up their own agendas. <oh aren't I the cynic huh? > You can't please everyone huh? Debate and criticism is healthy. I have my own values about things in my life, but I really don't try to impose them on others. Live and let live and all that.

Well, with respect to Mockingbird, as Lara point out: "...one has to consider how the language in the story provides the strength and moving emotions that make the story." Seems terribly elementary.

BTW, Arts and Letters Daily.com
www.aldaily.com

Neat web site.

[Sancho]

I had no idea book banning in public schools was so wide spread. What do you's think of the general banning of the book "The Anarchists Cookbook?” It’s basically a recipe book for bomb making and apparently was one Tim McVeigh’s favorites.

[den]

On the other hand... it's disturbing to see Paladin Press is still in business... a very strong argument for censorship and banning of books. :rolleyes:

[IWilKikU]

whats Paladin Press?

[den]

It's an `alternative' publishing company... do a google on it, they have a site, you've heard of it before I'm sure. ;) While this isn't a political forum, venturing into discussion of that site and most of the books that it flogs would probably be bordering politics... in short they seem to favour the `right to bear arms' and one's right to protect themselves and their property... you know, taking the law into your own hands... a lot of people have argued that criminals have `used' their books to nefarious ends and should be put out of business, and I wholeheartedly agree.

I only mention it to be contrary to the popular argument that censorship is unconstitutional or invasive of one's right to read or publish whatever they want. In some cases, censorship and or banning of books is a good idea. One of their books is not going to make me want to go out and buy a gun, but there is some societal consequence to what they publish, and it happens to be in the criminal realm, and I can't believe they get awa with it.

[hal9000]

Originally posted by den


I only mention it to be contrary to the popular argument that censorship is unconstitutional or invasive of one's right to read or publish whatever they want. In some cases, censorship and or banning of books is a good idea.

Your argument here is flimsy. Who then would decide what all the "in some cases" would be. Lines would continue to be drawn and the criteria for censorship would always be subjective.

Besides, sophisticated weapons systems, and chemical and biological weapons are routinely sold by corporations, and governments around the globe to so-called rouge nations. Rumsfeld was on the board of a company that sold hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment and services to North Korean nuclear plants. Why not invest energy holding government officials and corporations accountable instead of censoring small printing presses.

[crisaor]

I think both of you are right.

[IWilKikU]

I took a look at their site, www.paladin-press.com , and I cannot justify censoring them. Most of their stuff is dangerous information in the hands of the wrong people, but I know outdoorsmen (I'm from the Mountains of VA remember) that totally dig the kind of stuff on that site. None of my retard outdoorsmen friends will ever use their knowlege to hurt people. Also, alot of my friends from VA own guns and knives (big big knives mind you). If these weapons are availiable to the public, literature on how to use them HAS to be as well, I feel more safe knowing that my friends can buy these books and learn how to use thier weapons efficiently rather than stupidly.

Just to clarify, I strongly support gun control, I don't own weapons of any kind, and I wouldn't ever have any use for Paladin's publishing, but I think that it has a place.

[avid_reader]

top 10 banned books


1) Ulysses
by James Joyce. Published in 1918, this book was banned on sexual grounds. In 1922, 500 copies of the book were burned by the United States Department of the Post Office.


2) Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
by Mark Twain. Published in 1884, "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" has been banned on social grounds. Concord Public Library called the book "trash suitable only for the slums," when it first banned the novel in 1885.


3) Madame Bovary
by Gustave Flaubert. Published in 1857, "Madame Bovary" was banned on sexual grounds. In the trial, Imperial Advocate Ernest Pinard said, "No gauze for him, no veils--he gives us nature in all her nudity and crudity."


4) The Scarlet Letter
by Nathaniel Hawthorne. Published in 1850, "The Scarlet Letter" was censored on social grounds. The book has been challenged under claims that it is "pornographic and obscene."


5) Uncle Tom's Cabin
by Harriet Beecher Stowe. Published in 1852, "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was controversial. It has been been banned for language concerns.


6) Of Mice and Men
by John Steinbeck. Published in 1937, Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men" has been frequently banned on social grounds. The book has been called "offensive" and "vulger" because of the language and characterization.


7) Brave New World
by Aldous Huxley. Published in 1932, "Brave New World" has been banned with complaints about the language used, as well morality issues.


8) Lady Chatterley's Lover
by D.H. Lawrence. Published in 1928.


9) Moll Flanders
by Daniel Defoe. Published in 1722, "Moll Flanders" was one of the earliest novels. The book dramatically depicts the life and misadventures of a young girl, who becomes a prostitute. The book has been challenged on sexual grounds...


10) Candide
by Voltaire. Published in 1759, "Candide" was banned by the Catholic Church. Bishop Etienne Antoine wrote: "We prohibit, under canonical law, the printing or sale of these books..."

[Kiwi Shelf]

Honestly, people should be able to make their own choices about what they think is appropriate. Read it, if you don't like it, don't read it again. Simple as that.

[den]

Has anybody here actually physically read a published writing that personally upset you? or offended/outraged you?

I can't say I have. Like it's been mentioned here, reading books such as Uncle Tom's cabin may be offensive to some, but at the time it was written, it was contextually and linguistically appropriate given the era and socio-political climate. People are merely projecting their present-day values and `insight' or political correctness on something that is of `dated' lexicon. I love reading old stuff. Because I like to try to gain insight in times past. I guess these censorists aren't historians.

But as I was just telling someone in PM, I'm not a debater. I hate arguing. I have some _very_ strong opinions about some things, but I really don't feel a need to expound on them and try to convince others the `errors' of their thinking. I know there's controversial topics that polarise people. I avoid them like the plague :p

I should have been a diplomat. :D

[Shea]

Originally posted by den
Has anybody here actually physically read a published writing that personally upset you? or offended/outraged you?


I have, but I already discussed it. I couldn't stand The Awakening by Kate Chopin. But I wouldn't ban it.

I remember, before I read the Harry Potter books I fell into the category of criticizing it for the "witchcraft" thing. Then I decided to read it and see for myself. I was pleasantly surprised. It was no more harmful than Gandalf or any Narnian character. Even the beloved The Secret Garden deals with magic on a very innocent level. Are they going to ban that too???

I learned a very great lesson, and because I was an ignoramous that took other people's opinion instead of forming them for myself, that is how I see the people who love to ban practically any book.:mad:

[den]

Yeah Shea, I wonder if all the people involved in the censoring process actually read what they're trying to ban from public schools and libraries.

[crisaor]

Originally posted by den
Has anybody here actually physically read a published writing that personally upset you? or offended/outraged you?
I have, actually. All of them were writings of a right-winged politic or economic nature. Most of the local fauna of economists here is neoliberal, and sometimes I have a masochistic impulse to hear them or peek at their books. I wouldn't mind if they were censored, although I don't support it. I guess that what
I'd really like is that people was smart enough to pay them no attention. Maybe I'll get to see that someday (when I move to another country, sigh).

[Shea]

Originally posted by den
Yeah Shea, I wonder if all the people involved in the censoring process actually read what they're trying to ban from public schools and libraries.

It almost seems like parents who don't guide their children see the reactions from the books via their children. Obviously, that would cause serious misunderstandings.

[Lara]

Originally posted by den
<Has anybody here actually physically read a published writing that personally upset you? or offended/outraged you?>

No, but I am a very tolerant of peoples differences and don't get easily offended.

Originally posted by Kiwi Shelf
<Honestly, people should be able to make their own choices about what they think is appropriate. Read it, if you don't like it, don't read it again. Simple as that.>

Agreed. Why then do you think people have such a strong need to enforce their beliefs on others?

[hal9000]

Originally posted by crisaor
I have, actually. All of them were writings of a right-winged politic or economic nature. Most of the local fauna of economists here is neoliberal, and sometimes I have a masochistic impulse to hear them or peek at their books. I wouldn't mind if they were censored, although I don't support it. I guess that what
I'd really like is that people was smart enough to pay them no attention. Maybe I'll get to see that someday (when I move to another country, sigh).

LOL! A man after my own heart.

The term "Neoliberal" is misleading for some. Here's a good definition:

"Neo-liberalism" is a set of economic policies that have become widespread during the last 25 years or so. Although the word is rarely heard in the United States, you can clearly see the effects of neo-liberalism here as the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer.

"Liberalism" can refer to political, economic, or even religious ideas. In the U.S. political liberalism has been a strategy to prevent social conflict. It is presented to poor and working people as progressive compared to conservative or Rightwing. Economic liberalism is different. Conservative politicians who say they hate "liberals" -- meaning the political type -- have no real problem with economic liberalism, including neoliberalism.

"Neo" means we are talking about a new kind of liberalism. So what was the old kind? The liberal school of economics became famous in Europe when Adam Smith, an English economist, published a book in 1776 called THE WEALTH OF NATIONS. He and others advocated the abolition of government intervention in economic matters. No restrictions on manufacturing, no barriers to commerce, no tariffs, he said; free trade was the best way for a nation's economy to develop. Such ideas were "liberal" in the sense of no controls. This application of individualism encouraged "free" enterprise," "free" competition -- which came to mean, free for the capitalists to make huge profits as they wished.

Economic liberalism prevailed in the United States through the 1800s and early 1900s. Then the Great Depression of the 1930s led an economist named John Maynard Keynes to a theory that challenged liberalism as the best policy for capitalists. He said, in essence, that full employment is necessary for capitalism to grow and it can be achieved only if governments and central banks intervene to increase employment. These ideas had much influence on President Roosevelt's New Deal -- which did improve life for many people. The belief that government should advance the common good became widely accepted.

But the capitalist crisis over the last 25 years, with its shrinking profit rates, inspired the corporate elite to revive economic liberalism. That's what makes it "neo" or new. Now, with the rapid globalization of the capitalist economy, we are seeing neo-liberalism on a global scale.

A memorable definition of this process came from Subcomandante Marcos at the Zapatista-sponsored Encuentro Intercontinental por la Humanidad y contra el Neo-liberalismo (Inter-continental Encounter for Humanity and Against Neo-liberalism) of August 1996 in Chiapas when he said: "what the Right offers is to turn the world into one big mall where they can buy Indians here, women there ...." and he might have added, children, immigrants, workers or even a whole country like Mexico."

The main points of neo-liberalism include:

THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.

CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.

DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.

PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.

ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."

Around the world, neo-liberalism has been imposed by powerful financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank. It is raging all over Latin America. The first clear example of neo-liberalism at work came in Chile (with thanks to University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman), after the CIA-supported coup against the popularly elected Allende regime in 1973. Other countries followed, with some of the worst effects in Mexico where wages declined 40 to 50% in the first year of NAFTA while the cost of living rose by 80%. Over 20,000 small and medium businesses have failed and more than 1,000 state-owned enterprises have been privatized in Mexico. As one scholar said, "Neoliberalism means the neo-colonization of Latin America."

In the United States neo-liberalism is destroying welfare programs; attacking the rights of labor (including all immigrant workers); and cutbacking social programs. The Republican "Contract" on America is pure neo-liberalism. Its supporters are working hard to deny protection to children, youth, women, the planet itself -- and trying to trick us into acceptance by saying this will "get government off my back." The beneficiaries of neo-liberalism are a minority of the world's people. For the vast majority it brings even more suffering than before: suffering without the small, hard-won gains of the last 60 years, suffering without end.

[amuse]

hal9000, just a thought: do you want to quote your source?

[hal9000]

Elizabeth Martinez and Arnoldo Garcia, with the
National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights.
http://www.pepeace.org/current_reprints/07/Neoliberal.htm

Here's aditional information by Noam Chomsky:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/NeoliberalismPOP_Chom.html

[Kiwi Shelf]

Agreed. Why then do you think people have such a strong need to enforce their beliefs on others?

I think they have that need because enforcing their beliefs on others gives them power. They decided the fate of these people...

[Shea]

Originally posted by Kiwi Shelf
I think they have that need because enforcing their beliefs on others gives them power. They decided the fate of these people...

You've described my Catholic grandparents! They love a power trip (well now it just my grandmother, my grandfather passed away).

[Kiwi Shelf]

The weirdest thing happened, I was reading this post and such and then this morning I had to make a quick stop at the library at my university and they are having this big display about banned books and whether or not it is censorship... I really think it is because we are suppose to have freedom of speech and writing and then they go and make is so you can't read certain books.

[crisaor]

Hal9000, that's good stuff.

[subterranean]

In my country, during the 50's-60's, the president was a leftist, claimed to be an anti west. So during those times western books and music were banned. But in 65 there was this commnunist revolt which was failed to take over, then a new regime (which was a pro-west) gained powered. Since then many books from authors which considered as leftist were banned. So did musicians whose music were considered to spark leftist opinions. Then in 98, that regime was overthrowned and suddenly freedom of press gained power.

One thing that I learned from those events is that today's generation somehow got a misconception about the history of my country. Many events were twisted around without clear explanations because during those times information were controlled and censored. Even worst, those misleading information were given in schools. So, I agree that cencorship is a very dangerous thing to do and there's no way some authorities can determine which book can or cant be read by their citizens. It's our selves who has he ultimate right to decide which book is good or bad to read.

I remember one Rage Against the Machine's concerts where the band members stripped their clothes off to protest cencorship. Bravo guys.

[Blade]

here's a story for all you pro-choice people out there...

last year, (my freshman year in HS) we were 12 chapters into fahrenheit 451 when we were forced to return all our books, notes we had on the book and anything else related to it, because it supposedly contained material that encouraged a feeling of anti-government.

i'm curious as to yours views on this event

[Lara]

*sarcastically* God forbid that you should be influenced to think for yourself, question the authorities that be.

I've never read that book. Now I'll have to put it on my long 'to read list'.

Aren't we all anti-government?

This is an example of the conditioning society tries to inflict upon it's youth.

[amuse]

i haven't read it in a good 18 years, but "we were forced to return ...contained material that encouraged a feeling of anti-government" is a scarlet flag on fire if i ever saw one.

i was anti-government prior to reading it; the book had no effect that i can remember one way or the other. what an excellent way however to make a fuss and encourage people to be exactly that :rolleyes:

[creme_ala_creme]

thats completely ridiculous, in my english class (im in my freshman year at hs) we speak out against the government constantly (usually sparked by something my teacher says that reminds me of something govt-related that irks me), and if you feel anti-govt, reading a book wont change that, anyway,, what is happening to the 'freedom of speech' we are supposed to be granted in this country???

[Blade]

amen

[baddad]

Farenheit 451. The temperature at which paper bursts into flame. A book about the banning and burning of books and the persecution of those defying the laws banning the posession, reading, promulgation of books. And your school (in this century I'm assuming), recalled/banned the book!!!! Jeeezuz!!! somebody call the thought police!!!!

Sooo......your pulling our communal leg....right, Blade?

[yellowfeverlime]

Everybody, Don't you think it's a violation of our constitutional rights that there is the such thing as a banned book??? I do. We should be able to read what we want, when we want. :flare: :flare: :flare: :flare:

[Scheherazade]

Hi YellowFeverLime,

There have been similar discussions on the Forum before. You might these threads interesting:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13022

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2312&highlight=banning

[mono]

I very strongly agree, yellowfeverlime, and it seems to affect every public library, but never the bookstores around here. The fact frequently frustrates me, as you said, of a violation of literary freedom, though I guess I try understanding others' points.
Somehow I cannot understand how books like Mark Twain's The Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn get banned, yet magazines like Playboy and Penthouse sell at the common convenience store, and immense violence features on basic television and video games. :confused:

[Pendragon]

I very strongly agree, yellowfeverlime, and it seems to affect every public library, but never the bookstores around here. Somehow I cannot understand how books like Mark Twain's The Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn get banned, yet magazines like Playboy and Penthouse sell at the common convenience store, and immense violence features on basic television and video games. :confused:I could not have put it better. These censors are basically saying "This is inappropiate." Thank you very much, but I'll decide myself what is inappropiate, and the "smut-zines" they sell, as Mono states, quite openly, are far more "inappropiate" than most of their list of "banned litature". But then smut sells, unfortunately...http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/585.gif

[Aurora Ariel]

I just read this post, and I have to disagree with banning any book.I'm a strong supporter of freethought and think that no one should enforce their strict views onto others or set about regulating another individuals right to choose what they read or don't read as a mature adult.I don't believe in censorship either as I think one can decide for themself what they think is best to read and if you don't like it well, it's quite simple-don't read it!

[mono]

Basil, in another thread regarding this topic, brought up a very good point, I thought. I do not know if books like Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf has gotten banned from public libraries, but, as Basil asked, do you think most people would defend for Mein Kampf as strongly as with The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn?
I would like to think that I would defend for it, though I do not agree with everything Hitler wrote of in his book. With that, perhaps I could not have the ability to debate with as much diligence, but I would certainly defend for literary freedom.

[yellowfeverlime]

Hey people. Yea, did you know that in some places, "James and the Giant Peach" is a banned book!

[Wendigo_49]

Here is a couple of nice links on banned books.

100 most frequently challenged books from1900 - 2000 (http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/100mostfrequently.htm)

Banned Books Online (http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/banned-books.html)

The funniest banning:
An illustrated edition of "Little Red Riding Hood" was banned in two California school districts in 1989. Following the Little Red-Cap story from Grimm's Fairy Tales, the book shows the heroine taking food and wine to her grandmother. The school districts cited concerns about the use of alcohol in the story.
I think censorship on anything should not be allowed. What one considers smut (Playboy), another might consider the most beautiful art on the planet

[subterranean]

Totally agree with right of citizens to access information and/or to put ideas in books or any kinds of media. However, sometimes I also wonder what if someone who has bad intention, purchase a book about simple yet powerfull explosives that can be made with the stuffs you have in your kitchen, or buy legally in the nearest chemical store. I'm not being paranoid or saying that sort of thing can be use as justification to banned certain books, but I feel we should also realize the consequences of "absolute" freedom in accessing books/magazines/movies.

[Aurora Ariel]

Yes, I think many have been quite irrational in the past with banning books considered "dangerous to humanity, " and have ended up appearing quite dogmatic, in their approach to censorship and enforced restrictions, especially in a progressive modern age.Personally, I find it ridiculous that Black Beauty makes the list-this was my favourite book when I was about five!:)As for the others: I think many were outlawed by extremely conservative individuals or organisations during eras where these books were thought to be "lurid or obscene," and recommend what the public should read or not read and what was appropriate to typical morality at the time.The fifties were especially renowned for been an ultra-conservative era and many books would have shocked or "disgusted" the more uptight or non-progressive members of society who seeked to shelter the reading population from works thought undesirable or questionable to the state of the world.I have actually read many of the books on the lists and would strongly disagree with banning any;I would protest or sign a petition if anyone or fundamental organisation seeked to try and halt access to these books and ban them altogether.Even with books by radical( many were considered "radical" in their own time, but, were before their years)philosophers, political figures or controversial academics should never be banned as many, maby with polar views, may attempt to study them one day, but, never actually take on a similar stand themself.Many researchers read and analyse works they don't even agree with or support as a theory.It's just so absurd to to deny people the freedom to make up their own minds and read any text.No one can truely say that they live in a free and democratic society if their mind is regulated, their thoughts veiled and they are denied access to different opinions and books.
As an example:Lolita, by Vladimir Nabokov, is not going to turn everyone into a paedophile or make the next middle-aged man, who reads it, want to become the next Humbert Humbert.It's highly irrational to suggest that Lolita be banned because it features things which may be "bad".And another book(and later a Stanley Kubrick film in 1972) A Clockwork Orange, by Anthony Burgess, was considered controversial and frequently banned in cinemas.But just reading this book or watching the film is not going to transform everyone into anti-social delinquents.There is good and bad in nearly everything in life and, sadly, some are going to be more susceptible to the possible negative effects obtained by reading some of those books or watching a particular film;as they are already vunerable to take accounts literally and think that they have to copy the protagonist and do acts which may be deemed dangerous or harmful to the very fabric of society.Those who cannot think for themself or who are most impressionable may fall into a sticky web and find that they are caught up in a distorted realm where the world is now one big black maze which they can't get out of.But this should not mean that the majority of readers should be denied access to any of the books to assess and do analysis of the material on their own rational terms.If one has true reason then we shall come to the conclusion that goodness is a reward in itself and hopefully people can find the path that is best for them.

[yellowfeverlime]

Freedom of Speech-The First Amendment states that we can exercise the freedom to say what we want to publicly without government interference. It was specifically formed in response to the previous inability of people to criticize politics and political leaders. Today, freedom of speech is still a revered but also debated issue. People cannot say absolutely anything they want to in any situation. For example, sexual harrassment is a critical issue today. Also, controversies frequently arise when extreme groups, such as “hate groups,” claim the right to speak as they want to.

[Pendragon]

Here is a couple of nice links on banned books.

I found your list so disturbing that I printed it out! Some of these books I certainly would not read, but who made ME a barometer for the human race? A lot of books on that list are on my shelves and I enjoy them. And books that teach children about growing up and the changes taking place in their bodies? My wife and I used such books with our three kids, a daughter and two sons and I hardly think that makes us perverted. We needed a bit of help with "the talk", you know? Banning the Bible and the Quran? Wow! What about man's most basic freedom: CHOICE. You may choose to read or not to read, even as I avoid what I called-- (sorry, but it's how I feel, not intended to be forced on YOU, Wendigo_49 [cool NOM, BTW], mon ami!) --smut-zines. Watch out folks, BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU! http://www.websmileys.com/sm/aliens/hae36.gif

[yellowfeverlime]

Amazin' Huh?

[mono]

In moral conflicts such as banning books, I often wonder how this will result in the upcoming generations of readers, writers, and the developments of ethics in who presently exist as children.
Though I agree with many of you that some books on the ban-list have a shock value to them, others seem merely strange to see on the list. Not having banned books, I would like to think, desensitizes many people from diversity - primarily diversity of thought, but this concept can expand much further. Without so much diversity in literature, but instead getting set to specific genres in libraries, when a future adult (now child) experiences some of the diversity of thought presented in banned literature, what will he/she think? Will he/she embrace or reject it, banning it furthermore?

[Aurora Ariel]

I have heard similar comments before;about the possible desensitization.I think many may have thought about the news as well and wondered about the effects on the young undeveloped brain of the child;watching, for the first time, footage which contains disturbing and shocking footage.Maby they have thought that if that child is exposed to this, many times growing up, then they are desensitized and are less likely to be shocked in the future when disturbing or alarming footage is shown.It could also be applied to pictures in the newspapers and certain books.But I think one has to look at it from another angle.I mean what parent(in terms of responsibility)is going to give their young child a book like Lolita or A Clockwork Orange for their birthday?I doubt most parents would wish to give their little girl or boy a controversial book for Christmas?I think it's diffferent when applied to a teenager though, as many are mature enough to make sensible decisions for themself and figure out which book they want to read on their own.And really I think alot of this comes down to the nature of the individual involved.To be purely hypothetical:yes, I think there may be one child which ends up banning the book in their own mind, but, there may be another who comes along and embraces it entirely.But this is no reason to stop access to any of these books;some which have been ridiculously added to "banned lists" over the years.And I think maby one could look at the context of the different books written;some are naturally going to appear more idealistic and others take on a more realist approach.But I don't think most five-year olds or young kids are going to be reading a political manifesto(how many copies of Mein Kampf do you see on the average primary school kid's bookshelf?) or even interested in reading some radical philosophical book or controversial novel;so I think these works are usually read by people much older anyway and they should retain the right to read these books and have access to these various texts always.But at the same time I think many don't wish to shelter everyone to the extent that they never know what a war is or that there are possibly many bad or "disturbing" things that happen in the world and people that make mistakes.Innocence is special, but, ignorance is never desirable.I would not wish to be completely ignorant forever, but, I think one can maintain a "childlike spirit" or energy but not be ignorant.There is a difference between childlike and childish.Personally, I value freedom alot and strongly believe that everyone can have an open-mind to decide to read these books on the list if they wish to oneday.I vote for no ban-freedom of choice!Literature and creativity without authoritarian barriers please!

[samercury]

I think that the idea of banned books is the stupidest idea ever. I didn't really use to pay that much attention today but last week I went to the library and it was banned books week. On a table there were a lot of children/ YA books that were banned.

Sure there were some of the books that I wouldn't read if someone paid me, but that's just my point of view. What I like someone else might hate and what someone else liked I might not approve of. But I think that someone should decide for his/her self what they want to read.

Banning books isn't going to do anything except make people want to read them more and I think that most of the banned books are books that make people think differently about the world around them and the issues that affect everyone aound the world. I still can't see why books like -I Know Why The Caged Birds Sing' and 'The Giver' are considered banned books.


Somehow I cannot understand how books like Mark Twain's The Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn get banned, yet magazines like Playboy and Penthouse sell at the common convenience store, and immense violence features on basic television and video games. :confused:

I don't understand either.....

[yellowfeverlime]

They mustn't secretly want us to hold our own opinion. Why would people take the time, money, and effort, for their book to become banned. They want people to see their opinion, and anyone who wants to see their opinion can choose to or not too.

[yellowfeverlime]

Are we allowed to sware on this site... we should... not that i want too!

[Edmond]

Banned books are the books that you definitely need to read.

[Wendigo_49]

I found this website while trying to find why Where's Waldo picture book was challenged.

forbidden library (http://title.forbiddenlibrary.com)


Where's Waldo? Martin Handford. Little. Challenged at the Public Libraries of Saginaw, Mich. (1989), Removed from the Springs Public School library in East Hampton, N.Y. (1993) because there is a tiny drawing of a woman lying on the beach wearing a bikini bottom but no top. Yes, but did they find Waldo?

[yellowfeverlime]

That is sooo apalling. I don't mind the lady, but the banning. Who actually looks for that kind of stuff in a KIDS book is a pervert!

[yellowfeverlime]

Not that i don't like Stephen King, but i would not be surprised if some of his books became banned.

[yellowfeverlime]

:( :eek: :confused: :mad: I think that they only ban books that young people are liable to read. If there is any unecessary information that people that age should not have, then they say that the book can not be read. But then again, that's no fair to the adults.

Question: Who reads then decides which books are banned???? :confused:

[yellowfeverlime]

When does banned books week end?

[yellowfeverlime]

What is the official definition of a banned book?

[yellowfeverlime]

Are you people going to answer me, or am gonna hjave to consult a dictionary???

[Wendigo_49]

Not that i don't like Stephen King, but i would not be surprised if some of his books became banned.

It, The Stand, Different Seasons have all been challenged or removed in certain libraries across the nation.


I think that they only ban books that young people are liable to read. If there is any unecessary information that people that age should not have, then they say that the book can not be read. But then again, that's no fair to the adults.

I don't know about that. Beloved and The Canterbury Tales have both been removed from college prep High School classes.


Question: Who reads then decides which books are banned????

I think removing of books is usually done by a school board or librarian probably after a parent brings it up in a meeting. That doesn't mean that whole countries don't ban books like Ethiopia banning Hamlet since 1978

[Annaliese]

You can read quite a lot about the origins of book challenges and the reasons they are made at the American Library Association's website.

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/basics/Default2272.htm

[yellowfeverlime]

Thanks!
~STEVIOE~

[subterranean]

Government authorities. Well, at least in my country, there's this institution which screens out books and movies :rolleyes:

And to answer your other Q: no, we are not allow to swear in this forum.


Question: Who reads then decides which books are banned???? :confused:

[yellowfeverlime]

Thought so...

[yellowfeverlime]

In May, 1899, Stalin was expelled from the Tiflis Theological Seminary. Several reasons were given for this action including disrespect for those in authority and reading forbidden books. Stalin was later to claim that the real reason was that he had been trying to convert his fellow students to Marxism.

Funny, huh? Maybe banned books started the Russian Revolution...

[pickupyourbrain]

The problem with banning books, for whatever reason, is that it infringes on the market place of ideas and exempts individuals from forming their own judments of the book's quality. Ray Bradbury's Farenheit 451 is an interesting case study in censorship, and it makes the point that the more information and different viewpoints available, the better off society is. I think people often forget that we don't have the right not to be offended, and the gods be thanked for it. It is what opens up dialogue and necessitates an examination of the very things that make us human.

[yellowfeverlime]

I was wondering why books are banned, then why are they printed. Becasue people want to read them... and why do they ban them... to make them unpopular... and what happens... they become more popular.

[pickupyourbrain]

No kidding. In a society that is at the front and center of the information age, banning a book is in some ways the best thing that could happen to it. The ensuing attention it receives can give it a lot more prestige than it originally would have had, and people want to read it for themselves. Censorship is a serious problem when it is enforced as an absolute silencing mechanism, and in our society that is a fairly unrealistic, though no less disturbing, occurence.

[samercury]

They mustn't secretly want us to hold our own opinion. Why would people take the time, money, and effort, for their book to become banned. They want people to see their opinion, and anyone who wants to see their opinion can choose to or not too.

My opinion exactly.... I mean if you look at most of the banned books, they're mostly about an individual trying to be his/her own self. When they're banned- what is that supposed to teach you? Don't think differently from everyone else.
Besides, banning books just makes them more popular, so it's pointless :D

[subterranean]

Popular to certain people/groups not popular to most people

[yellowfeverlime]

Why was "Little Red Riding Hood" banned anyways?????

[subterranean]

Something to do with alcohol where there's one version shows that the girl taking food and wine to her grandmother...Maybe people in general think that it's unappropriate for a little gal to do that.

[subterranean]

And here are some (IMO) ridiculous reasons of why certain books banned:

[subterranean]

And here are some (IMO) ridiculous reasons of why certain books banned:

Call of the Wild by Jack London: Too radical
Twelfth Night by Shakespeare: Alternative lifestyle introduction
Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll: Animals should not use human language and should not be put on the same level as humans
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger: Sex scenes, themes of questioning authority, unsuited to age group (oh I'm dying to read this book)
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou : Sexual content, racism, offensive language

[yellowfeverlime]

What about burning books? I totally disagree. DEBATE IS ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (aLWAYS WANTED TO SAY THAT!)

[Psycheinaboat]

What amazes me most about book burnings (besides the obvious idiocy) is that people will purchase books just to have something to burn.

It seems each time Rowling releases a new HP book, some group somewhere will be shown on the news burning the book. And every time I have seen pictures from an event like this, I always see people pulling pristine, new books from bags that were purchased just for the occasion.

It cannot believe these people will offer financial support to authors and publishers they disapprove of so strongly.

[okmit]

In the late 60s or early 70s,I bought a copy of "The Anarchist Cookbook"because I was told Dr.Timothy Leary had contributed his personal recipe for ACID made out of common kitchen ingriedences and the book was about to be banned!I was neither an anarchist nor an acid freak but thought Leary would be a classic hedonist an the book would be vintage.Well the book didn't get banned and to the few that still remember him he is generaly viewed as the burn out hippy professor!
I had read a "Cookbook "was confiscated from from Nichols that had the method for making a nitrogen,diesel fuel bomb that McVeigh used.Hmm?

[subterranean]

Fool, one of the members here, said that many things in The Anarchist Cookbook don't work..What do you think Okmit?

[okmit]

Fool, one of the members here, said that many things in The Anarchist Cookbook don't work..What do you think Okmit?

I don't know what didn't work for him?I'm aware of a couple botched attempts to make an explosive that was a mix of melted lard an gasoline that killed a few would be bomb makers.And there was also a recipe that called for skinning a tree toad ,drying the skin,pulverize,mix with a turkish tobacco and smoke for a wild trip that a few never came back home from.
I think the key is the Cook not the Cookbook.I still can't Bake a Betty Crocker Cake!

[subterranean]

Sounds dangerous enough for me...:eek:


Yes, you have a point here..


I think the key is the Cook not the Cookbook

[samercury]

And here are some (IMO) ridiculous reasons of why certain books banned:

Call of the Wild by Jack London: Too radical
Twelfth Night by Shakespeare: Alternative lifestyle introduction
Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll: Animals should not use human language and should not be put on the same level as humans
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger: Sex scenes, themes of questioning authority, unsuited to age group (oh I'm dying to read this book)
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou : Sexual content, racism, offensive language

Is it just me or are they making some of those things up. Also on the subject of burning books- they're just supporting the authors. They burn books- where do they get them? By buying them. To whom do most of the profits go to? The author!!!! What a surprise :eek: (not). The whole idea is just stupid.

[MiSaNtHrOpE]

Banning books is the most awful thing one can do, and I blame the ignorant parents and neoconservatives for it. I read Fahrenheit 451. Do you want to know the real reason why certain books are banned? Because they make you think, and people dont want to think. They want to bury their heads in the sand and leave their children uneducated and brainwashed. The restriction of ideas is a very good start for brainwashing. I read a lot this year, on my own and in school, and I have come to see that literature is probably the greatest lasting human achievement. The perpetuation of ideas has a significant, positive impact on a free society like ours, and once ideas are restricted, we're not free anymore. Most of the books on the banned list (I read the list in Intelligence Report, Spring 2005, published by the Southern Poverty Law Center) were banned because they disagree with the neoconservative, Christian Right ideals. The group of parents are hardly ever the majority, but they fight with volume more than reason, and as such, usually get what they want. Ray Bradbury sums it up nicely yet depressingly in pages 57-62 of the 50th Anniversary Edition of F451

[Bongitybongbong]

yeah i picked the choice that sounded most annoying "i could careless...i hate books". no i like books and *sarcasm* i think that it helps stop the corruption of children

[IrishCanadian]

This poll is loaded. Im the guy who said I like the isea. Not because I want to see good, new, inovative literaute that makes you think banned. However, speaking from experience i know that porn can be very harmful. We all know the bomb recipies can be harmfull too.
I like the idea of banning THESE books and similar atrocities. The poll is loaded because it gives a good reason for the most likely answere within the question.
Of course the books that i wouldn't mind seeing banned are not liturature. If books were to be benned who would have the authority? I wish i could answerre that. We all know that authority would become corrupt or be bribed or be threatened even. Its too abd there has to be evil in the world as well as excelent literture.

[Logos]

I posted this in the Mark Twain Huckleberry Finn "This book is racist" topic (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13022&page=2&pp=15)

I think that censorship or basically blaming a book for inciting any sort of violence is an ill-aimed panacea.

I think that most `normal' well-adjusted people process some of the more disturbing information/literature/media out there and remain `normal'.

The minority ill-adjusted dysfunctional person will end up doing any number of anti-social acts if they go on living their life without any realisation that they need help, until they end up in jail or something. A book can be a convenient way out I suppose.

Kids who enact `revenge' or violence of some sort on their peers are disturbed and ill-adjusted and need help. They will find guns or violence or whatever else to express their outrage and anger. I think there is not enough prevention in place to staunch such need in the first place. Oh ya, but parents can blame the govt. on how their kids are turning out, blame school system etc.

People start believing that the gov'ts job is to protect them from disturbing things. People start forgetting how to make their own moral and value judgements, they don't have to because the gov't. is thinking for them.

That is disturbing. :)

I think that one has to take into account the premise of a book, why it was written.

Is it a non-fictional instruction manual?
Is it revisionist fiction history?
Is it an autobiographical memoir?

Thankfully there are books being written, even today, that are direct result of the current culture. So that in 100 years from now someone will get an idea of how things were in our time. No it isn't all rainbows and roses :)

You have a point Scher about drawing the line.. but I still think it's more accurate and authentic to have a wide-range of `literature' from any given point in history for future reference. So in Twain's time, what if all his books had been censored and burned and we now don't have an accurate portrayal of African-American history? I don't want my history sanitised, I want to know how wretchedly horrible Hitler was, so hopefully it never happens again.

Children unfortunately have to be exposed to uncomfortable ugly things sooner or later. If I had children of my own, of course my responsibility, I would do my utmost to prepare them for the ugly things in this world that will IMO never go away. At least I can hope that they will then be well-adjusted people armed and ready to deal with such moral and social quandry. Exposure to the dogma and beliefs of religious sects and splinter groups included. ;)

Sweeping things under the rug doesn't make them go away, the accumulation will just trip you up and come back to haunt you. In My Opinion, Your Mileage May Vary.

[subterranean]

But Logos, I think that's what all parents do. They prepare their children based on the values and norms they have, which they may consider the best. I think this is because in general, people consider that a child's very first lessons and values come from his/her family members. So parents tend to transfer their norms, knowledge, and values to their children as early as possible. And those are significant to a child's personality and character development.
My mother raised me in Christian values in my childhood, and of course she would expect me to be a good Christian in my future. But when she saw my bookshelves, somewhere in her heart, she must have felt that she has failed in some way.



Children unfortunately have to be exposed to uncomfortable ugly things sooner or later. If I had children of my own, of course my responsibility, I would do my utmost to prepare them for the ugly things in this world that will IMO never go away. At least I can hope that they will then be well-adjusted people armed and ready to deal with such moral and social quandry. Exposure to the dogma and beliefs of religious sects and splinter groups included. ;)

Sweeping things under the rug doesn't make them go away, the accumulation will just trip you up and come back to haunt you. In My Opinion, Your Mileage May Vary.

[Nobody]

Banning books is awful, and why would you burn a book?

[MiSaNtHrOpE]

I posted this in the Mark Twain Huckleberry Finn "This book is racist" topic (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13022&page=2&pp=15)

I think that censorship or basically blaming a book for inciting any sort of violence is an ill-aimed panacea.

I think that most `normal' well-adjusted people process some of the more disturbing information/literature/media out there and remain `normal'.

The minority ill-adjusted dysfunctional person will end up doing any number of anti-social acts if they go on living their life without any realisation that they need help, until they end up in jail or something. A book can be a convenient way out I suppose.

Kids who enact `revenge' or violence of some sort on their peers are disturbed and ill-adjusted and need help. They will find guns or violence or whatever else to express their outrage and anger. I think there is not enough prevention in place to staunch such need in the first place. Oh ya, but parents can blame the govt. on how their kids are turning out, blame school system etc.

People start believing that the gov'ts job is to protect them from disturbing things. People start forgetting how to make their own moral and value judgements, they don't have to because the gov't. is thinking for them.

That is disturbing. :)

I think that one has to take into account the premise of a book, why it was written.

Is it a non-fictional instruction manual?
Is it revisionist fiction history?
Is it an autobiographical memoir?

Thankfully there are books being written, even today, that are direct result of the current culture. So that in 100 years from now someone will get an idea of how things were in our time. No it isn't all rainbows and roses :)

You have a point Scher about drawing the line.. but I still think it's more accurate and authentic to have a wide-range of `literature' from any given point in history for future reference. So in Twain's time, what if all his books had been censored and burned and we now don't have an accurate portrayal of African-American history? I don't want my history sanitised, I want to know how wretchedly horrible Hitler was, so hopefully it never happens again.

Children unfortunately have to be exposed to uncomfortable ugly things sooner or later. If I had children of my own, of course my responsibility, I would do my utmost to prepare them for the ugly things in this world that will IMO never go away. At least I can hope that they will then be well-adjusted people armed and ready to deal with such moral and social quandry. Exposure to the dogma and beliefs of religious sects and splinter groups included. ;)

Sweeping things under the rug doesn't make them go away, the accumulation will just trip you up and come back to haunt you. In My Opinion, Your Mileage May Vary.

I wholeheartedly agree! However, pornography isnt often harmful. Our imaginations contribute greatly to sexual activity, and our imagination consists of images from erotica. I will say that certain porn is bad, such as mock-rape scenes and violent S&M, but normally, erotica consists of consenting adults who know that they are being filmed. Not all porn is harmful.

As much as I am against banning of books, I believe that certain books should be read at different age levels. Hold Cather in the Rye off until high school, please. It is the outright removal of books from the curriculum for illegitimate reasons ("So-and-So is a radical who didn't like African-Americans"), that I get upset about. I think Ray Bradbury puts the process of book-banning succinctly in F451 when Montag was speaking with the Captain.

On irresponsible parents, my ex-neighbors, who moved out 7 or so years ago, were very sheltered from reality, they grew up in a strict Christian household, weren't allowed to SEE a vieogame system, let alone own one (one of the two brothers asked "Whats a Nintendo 64?") and the mother was the end-all-be-all. One of the two kids whom I was friends with, actually said to me "Puberty? That sounds bad. I dont want that."

Well, parents, "what you dont know cant hurt you" is the biggest, most destructive lie ever perptuated by supposedly intelligent people.

When I have kids of my own, I am going to give them the knowledge they truly need to make educated, intelligent decisions based on relative morality (that includes the positive side of sexual activity as well as the risks!).

[okmit]

Banning books is awful, and why would you burn a book?
Banning is impossible,they just go underground.Burning a book is one of the least violent forms of protesting an attack on ones phylosophical perspective.
Salman Rushdi had a million dollar bounty for writing "The Satanic Letters." I'll bet he would have preferred that Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and the boys would have just held a bon fire of his book.

[underground]

i thought i've responded to something like this, but oh well.

a bibliophile myself, i actually don't disagree with book-banning. i don't know much about how book-banning really works (are we talking domestic book-banning? international-wide?), but i think excluding certain books from the school's library is not a bad idea. yes, the world is harsh, and children will know the be exposed to the truth eventually, but if i were a parent, i'd rather my children stay innocent for as long as they can. they have only what, 12 years to be children? (the number is decreasing with every passing year) and the rest of their life to be kicked and punched and spat on in the face (can be figuratively or literally).

it's also worth remembering that some books are, well, trash. if i were a dictator and the world is under my control, for example, i'd ban all those paperback romance novels. :p there are also books that are way too graphic and explicit that they'd best stay inside people's head instead of written, plausible for children to accidentally see.

granted, book-burning is stupid and a waste of paper and trees. and those who condemn harry potter because it includes wizardry and stuff are, to put it gently, dum.

[Logos]

I wholeheartedly agree! However, pornography isnt often harmful. Our imaginations contribute greatly to sexual activity, and our imagination consists of images from erotica. I will say that certain porn is bad, such as mock-rape scenes and violent S&M, but normally, erotica consists of consenting adults who know that they are being filmed. Not all porn is harmful.


Not sure if this was directed at me? I wasn't specifically referring to porn in my post although that too is something I feel has no reason to be banned by the government :)

[okmit]

i thought i've responded to something like this, but oh well.

a bibliophile myself, i actually don't disagree with book-banning. i don't know much about how book-banning really works (are we talking domestic book-banning? international-wide?), but i think excluding certain books from the school's library is not a bad idea. yes, the world is harsh, and children will know the be exposed to the truth eventually, but if i were a parent, i'd rather my children stay innocent for as long as they can. they have only what, 12 years to be children? (the number is decreasing with every passing year) and the rest of their life to be kicked and punched and spat on in the face (can be figuratively or literally).

it's also worth remembering that some books are, well, trash. if i were a dictator and the world is under my control, for example, i'd ban all those paperback romance novels. :p there are also books that are way too graphic and explicit that they'd best stay inside people's head instead of written, plausible for children to accidentally see.

granted, book-burning is stupid and a waste of paper and trees. and those who condemn harry potter because it includes wizardry and stuff are, to put it gently, dum.

I think this looks familiar also? Dejavu for two perhaps.

[subterranean]

Most of us here, I think, are using values (good, awful, bad, acceptable in some terms),thus we're talking in qualitative term, In person to person level, the question about banning books is a relative thing.

For example, underground stated:


it's also worth remembering that some books are, well, trash.

Now, If I were to ask him/her some titles which he considered as trash, there is a posibillity that other members, including myself, would challenge him.

The subjectivity, course, also apply to people who have the authorities to ban or not to ban certain publications, because they are using their knowledge/values/norms/religious/political bakcgrounds to make determination.

[B-Mental]

Banning is impossible,they just go underground.Burning a book is one of the least violent forms of protesting an attack on ones phylosophical perspective.
Salman Rushdi had a million dollar bounty for writing "The Satanic Letters." I'll bet he would have preferred that Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and the boys would have just held a bon fire of his book.


I can't believe that this was posted. What about the Nazi's in Germany? They would hold rallies regularly burning banned books. Its a form of mind control. Actually, I'm offended by the thought of it.

[IrishCanadian]

I wholeheartedly agree! However, pornography isnt often harmful. Our imaginations contribute greatly to sexual activity, and our imagination consists of images from erotica. I will say that certain porn is bad, such as mock-rape scenes and violent S&M, but normally, erotica consists of consenting adults who know that they are being filmed. Not all porn is harmful.
I didn't mean that porn is harmful to the adult performing the activity...were talking about books not films, that would just be silly of me. But since you brought it up i will be silly and oblige. Porn is harmful psychologically to the viewer if he/she tends to use a lot of it (in films, books, magazines ...). Furthermore, pornography is one of the most addictive things i can think of (next to television).
This hits quite close to home with me, and I am willing to explain to you why in a more intimate setting, so if you wish to know please send me a private message via this website. Just please don't assume that such a blaspheme against such a beautiful loveing act is harmless.

[subterranean]

Porn is harmful psychologically to the viewer if he/she tends to use a lot of it (in films, books, magazines ...). Furthermore, pornography is one of the most addictive things i can think of (next to television).


And so does alcohol....

[Nobody]

Well, alcohol is bad, but if they ban a book with it in it, then wouldn't people be wantign to know more about it, then drink instead of read... weird, but just a question.

[Ess]

i think this whole business of banning books is really uncalled for. maybe it is justified when people do bombs and things like that but really, things like porn and the like should be given age brackets and not banned altogether. you see, what may be normal to one person may be porn to another. i think what should happen is that people should be given the freedom to read what they want and judge for themselves whether its good or bad.

[ponynikki]

It depends what people mean by "banning books."
Certainly there are books that should be banned in Jr.High, Elementary, maybe even high school. With the way children interact with each other there are some things that should not be brought to their attention.
But "Mein Kampf" is banned in Gemany- One cannot forget history. They are trying to ban it in Canada, books are knowledge that shouldn't be erased.

[Darlin]

I’m curious what everyone thinks about books that are blatant lies such as Japan trying to rewrite their history regarding their relations with China and the Nazi's stating the Holocaust never happened and the old history books of the South that totally discredit the North and why the war was fought. My mother who’s from Kentucky has an old school book like that and any child reading that back in the 50's could have easily grown up to be completely ignorant of the truth unless a wiser, unbiased person stepped in to enlighten them.

[IrishCanadian]

Excelent point, hmmm. I'd probably ask it only to be published with a forward by a hired historian (easier said than done). Because such political atrocities are a good insite to historical propaganda and political power struggles.

[Logos]

Excelent point, hmmm. I'd probably ask it only to be published with a forward by a hired historian (easier said than done). Because such political atrocities are a good insite to historical propaganda and political power struggles.

Ah, but for the right price I bet you can pay anyone to write whatever you want ;)

`Peer review' process is only so good as the body governing it's actions. If it's the propaganda-based, then they're all on the `wrong' idea, right? but they don't care they're getting their message across.

[IrishCanadian]

Your absolutely right. would banning it be the right decision then? This is a tough call.

[MiSaNtHrOpE]

Mein Kampf should not be banned for a single reason: People need to know. An age-old saying applies here: "Those that dont know history are damned to repeat it." If we "forget" about Hitler and push the Holocaust away, we are creating an opportunity to happen again. Sometime in the far future, if a dictator rises up and is in danger of causing another holocaust, only those that know about Hitler could stop it. For the sake of humanity, history, and society, Mein Kampf should not be banned.

[subterranean]

My country also has black history, where some of historical events were twisted and people were told to believe the lies...But history (I sometimes called it HIS-STORY) sometimes served as justification and the tool of power, and it's one of the main causes of banned books/media.


I’m curious what everyone thinks about books that are blatant lies such as Japan trying to rewrite their history regarding their relations with China and the Nazi's stating the Holocaust never happened and the old history books of the South that totally discredit the North and why the war was fought. My mother who’s from Kentucky has an old school book like that and any child reading that back in the 50's could have easily grown up to be completely ignorant of the truth unless a wiser, unbiased person stepped in to enlighten them.



For the sake of humanity, history, and society, Mein Kampf should not be banned.

For certain people, this book is an inspirational source, don't you think so?!

[Wendigo_49]

For certain people, this book is an inspirational source, don't you think so?!
Yes I do, however I don't think the banning of the book would deter anybody from joining the party and might even stimulate enlistment in the neo-nazi party.

[underground]

I’m curious what everyone thinks about books that are blatant lies such as Japan trying to rewrite their history regarding their relations with China and the Nazi's stating the Holocaust never happened and the old history books of the South that totally discredit the North and why the war was fought. My mother who’s from Kentucky has an old school book like that and any child reading that back in the 50's could have easily grown up to be completely ignorant of the truth unless a wiser, unbiased person stepped in to enlighten them.

actually, sometimes it may not be "blatant lies" but rather a, uh, different points of view. i would make an example a part of history according to the united states during the world war ii. forgive me for not being meticulous with details and dates, but some time before the war ended, methinks, the united states soldiers went to the philippines and supposedly "rescued" the people from japan? thus, according to an average american today, the philippines owed us. in the meantime, the filipinos really regarded the us soldiers as nuisances and didn't like them much to the point of hate even. again, forgive me for my shabby history knowledge; i could get some things wrong.

[lhaeber]

There are other places where "banning" takes place besides libraries, etc. I took a book to work where the owners/management were all of a particular religion...I was asked to not bring it in and then when I refused and told them it was illegal for them to request such a thing, they asked that I cover it in brown paper...I did, but I wish I'd chosen to be braver.
It got much worse when I announced I was pregnant ( I was single).Oy va.

[subterranean]

Indeed. People need to be aware that when they demand freedom, they need to accept all the consequences. After reading the book, there are people would condemn the acts, and there are also others who would be inspired by it.


Yes I do, however I don't think the banning of the book would deter anybody from joining the party and might even stimulate enlistment in the neo-nazi party.

[Logos]

There are other places where "banning" takes place besides libraries, etc. I took a book to work where the owners/management were all of a particular religion...I was asked to not bring it in and then when I refused and told them it was illegal for them to request such a thing, they asked that I cover it in brown paper...I did, but I wish I'd chosen to be braver.
It got much worse when I announced I was pregnant ( I was single).Oy va.

This seems to happen a lot. There is a famous "mental health care facility" where I live, and I know they have a list of books that are banned for the patients, one of them being "Girl Interrupted". Their rationalisation is that the book could possibly give ideas to patients who are suicidal. So I can understand that and respect it.

[Darlin]

actually, sometimes it may not be "blatant lies" but rather a, uh, different points of view. i would make an example a part of history according to the united states during the world war ii. forgive me for not being meticulous with details and dates, but some time before the war ended, methinks, the united states soldiers went to the philippines and supposedly "rescued" the people from japan? thus, according to an average american today, the philippines owed us. in the meantime, the filipinos really regarded the us soldiers as nuisances and didn't like them much to the point of hate even. again, forgive me for my shabby history knowledge; i could get some things wrong.


True, true. Burma considered the English and American's as unwanted trespassers more or less during WWII even to the point of hate as well and I've never read that in a history book. The old history book my mother has from the 50's doesn't even mention the Holocaust and I was shocked at that.

Different points of views is what freedom of speech is all about I suppose but it can be harmful if not balanced with the facts. Unfortunately those who read books with a different pov might not realize that pov isn't the truth and then it could become a problem.

Freedom of speech means you can write anything about any subject whether harmful, disrespectful, immoral, cruel, or dishonest and not banning books means anyone can read these books. I think subterranean mentioned a few pages back that one has to realize the consequences of this freedom. Not banning books that may be detrimental as in the case of mental patients which Logos mentioned isn’t necessarily a good thing.

[Wendigo_49]

Indeed. People need to be aware that when they demand freedom, they need to accept all the consequences. After reading the book, there are people would condemn the acts, and there are also others who would be inspired by it.
I totally agree with you.

[el01ks]

I agree with the idea of free speech/though etc on general principal, but would definitely not want my future hypothetical children to read/see everything!
At the moment, Britain is considering strict anti terrorism laws guarding against, for example, muslim clerics telling people that Jihad is great and all brits are infidels anyway, so can be killed with impunity (in fact, with the reward of going to heaven). I am all in favour of people not being able to recommend blowing me up to fanatics, but find the idea of this censorship disturbing. Where would it stop? A drunken conversation in a pub could end up landing someone in prison.
Complete freedom of speech is probably an impossibility, and in this day and age we seem much more likely to lose it.

Perhaps instead of banning books, people could consider an age guide on them as we have on films? Of course, then they'd have to employ someone to read everything... :S

[IrishCanadian]

Well in Canada now we have a ghastly thing called the "hate literature bill" which dis-allows anyone from publishing in any way anything that may be seen as a hate message towards a certain goup or culure. I'm sorry, i forgot we can't talk politics. But I thought that people should know that in this case (especiallt considering what was said earlier about Nazi propaganda lit) books are being banned before their even givin to the world.

[MiSaNtHrOpE]

I am all in favour of people not being able to recommend blowing me up to fanatics, but find the idea of this censorship disturbing.

Well, yeah thats the problem. Theres not a responsible person in charge in order to make that decision, but I like the idea. Tony Blair said he wanted to deport religious extremists, and, I think, the US should do the same. I wish we could, however, but the religious extremists have their puppet in charge.... :(

[IrishCanadian]

Define a religious extremist... and the religious leaders only have their puppet in charge on a few matters in even less (western) nations.

[Psycheinaboat]

Well, yeah thats the problem. Theres not a responsible person in charge in order to make that decision, but I like the idea. Tony Blair said he wanted to deport religious extremists, and, I think, the US should do the same. I wish we could, however, but the religious extremists have their puppet in charge.... :(

I would agree with you, to an extent, only if you define a "religious extremist" as someone willing to use violence in the name of their religion. I can tolerate your freedom of speech, but when you hurt someone else while hiding behind your religion, that, I cannot tolerate.

There are many Christian fundamentalists who scare me, but I do not suspect them of violence. I do worry that they help make America fertile ground for possible violence, however, that possibility would not be enough for me to support deporting or imprisoning them.

Sorry to talk politics, sometimes it is difficult to bite one's tongue.

To get back on topic, I recently finished a wonderful book that has been banned in a couple of school systems. I read The Perks of Being a Wallflower so that I could make an informed decision as a parent, and absolutely loved it. I liked this books so well I can scarcely call my opinion unbiased. I would recommend this book for anyone fourteen years of age and up.

[Logos]

I know it's hard to avoid sometimes, but let's get back on topic please, politics, terrorism etc. are not allowed.

[yellowfeverlime]

how about this:

the comparision between banning books, and censorship on TV.

[starrwriter]

Banning books is a short step away from burning books and dictatorship like the Nazi Third Reich. It's also the first step toward something even worse -- the Thought Police that Orwell predicted in his novel "1984."

Since this book was mentioned elsewhere in the thread, "Mein Kampf" by Hitler should not only not be banned, it should be required reading for high school or college students. The book gives a valuable insight into the workings of a very sick mind that conceived the idea of book burning in Germany before the real slaughter began.

[snivslove]

i dont understand banned books. i dont think that there should be any banned books, i mean if you don't like the material.. you are NOT forced to read it. dont ruin it for someone who IS interested in it. i mean, now i think that makes sense.

[adm]

Ages ago when I worked in a book store, this book was forbidden to be sold in stores. As someone being in the military, I am for banning such kind of books. The last thing I need is some nut out there telling people "extremests of various kinds" on how to build a bomb. Yes, I would band such books in a heart beat.
You know, we instantly go running to the Constitution. That's fine, but it also says "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happyness. If such books will endanger my life and the life of my country men, it's band.
However, you can't please everyone and with some folks common sence and good judgement are right out the window. We've put an age limit on cigarrettes, movies, magazines, and so I reckon we need to do it with books. I do it in my household.

[subterranean]

Hi, Snislove. Yes, I agree with your point there. However, to some people, the issue is much deeper than just a matter of interest, like, or dislike. For example, to authorities, this issue strecht beyond that; it may involves the issues of social morality/stability or even national security. Reasons which to some of us may sound ridiculous.

Welcome on board, by the way :wave:



i dont understand banned books. i dont think that there should be any banned books, i mean if you don't like the material.. you are NOT forced to read it. dont ruin it for someone who IS interested in it. i mean, now i think that makes sense.

[starrwriter]

Ages ago when I worked in a book store, this book was forbidden to be sold in stores. As someone being in the military, I am for banning such kind of books. The last thing I need is some nut out there telling people "extremests of various kinds" on how to build a bomb. Yes, I would ban such books in a heart beat.
Starting at age 14, I learned how to make explosives and rockets from books in my public library. It was something that fascinated me and it led to a mastery of chemistry in general long before I ever took the course in high school. Because I was considered a precocious genius in chemistry, I was offered a college scholarship to study chemical engineering when I graduated.

I mention this to show that books and ideas are not dangerous in themselves, it's individuals who misuse them. I was no terrorist and I never harmed anyone with my experiments, but I gained something positive from being able to pursue my interests in books.

[Psycheinaboat]

However, you can't please everyone and with some folks common sence and good judgement are right out the window. We've put an age limit on cigarrettes, movies, magazines, and so I reckon we need to do it with books. I do it in my household.

What you speak of is parental control, and I agree with that. I think that if parents truly want to be responsible for their children and do not want others (i.e. government) telling them how to parent, they must be willing to take the responsibilies that come with the rights. I agree with you on this point, however, I do not feel that the world should or can be child-proofed, and that includes trying to ban books to make it more difficult for children to get them.

I disapprove of banning books because it is not ideas that are dangerous, it is some people who are, and those people will be a danger with or without guides for bomb making.

[Scheherazade]

I am not really sure about this whole issue. Ideas can be dangerous, I believe. I don't think I would be OK with certain books easily circulating around. Do you want to see a book justifying/dignifying paedophilia sitting on the shelves of your local library? Or actions of KKK? How would you feel if your neighbour had these in their personal library? If those book were written in a way to imply that it would be OK to do certain things?

Now I am wondering if those who are against book bannings are all against banning of certain websites as well.

[Psycheinaboat]

Good points, Sche. The promotion of criminal activity is a grey area.

Personally, I believe if a book is more of an instruction manual on how to successfully murder someone or rob a bank, there may be some merit to banning it. But, if the book has any other possible uses, like Starr pointed out about the bomb book, I would consider it redeemable.

The problem is, whose standards do we use?

[subterranean]

Weel, ideas are from people. So, what then? Do we need to banned the writters? And I think it's very deterministic to say that someone will be a danger towards others with or withour an access to certain types of books.



I disapprove of banning books because it is not ideas that are dangerous, it is some people who are, and those people will be a danger with or without guides for bomb making.

[MiSaNtHrOpE]

What you speak of is parental control, and I agree with that. I think that if parents truly want to be responsible for their children and do not want others (i.e. government) telling them how to parent, they must be willing to take the responsibilies that come with the rights. I agree with you on this point, however, I do not feel that the world should or can be child-proofed, and that includes trying to ban books to make it more difficult for children to get them.

I disapprove of banning books because it is not ideas that are dangerous, it is some people who are, and those people will be a danger with or without guides for bomb making.

85% of parents are irresponsible, misguided, and uninformed about what their children do, and want to let the government be the parent. I went to Best Buy yesterday, and an 8 year old kid was holding GTA: Vice City, and the mother was on the phone with her husband about the game, and I said to her: "I wouldnt let him play that." Maybe, like parents are involved with their children's sports, should be more aware of what videogames their kids play. This would not only bring a certain amount of responsibility into parenting, but the parents might also find enjoyment and bonding with their child.

[Psycheinaboat]

85% of parents are irresponsible, misguided, and uninformed about what their children do, and want to let the government be the parent.

I agree that many parents should be more involved, but I do not know where you got your 85% stat. so I cannot comment on that.

[Psycheinaboat]

Weel, ideas are from people. So, what then? Do we need to banned the writters?

I do not see the need to ban an author who, say, writes a violent book. Thinking the ideas is not a crime, after all.


And I think it's very deterministic to say that someone will be a danger towards others with or withour an access to certain types of books.

Hmmm, I tend to think people who are "unhinged" or disturbed do not get it from books, but rather from years of difficulties or from physical abnormalities like chemical imbalances.

This reminds me of some of the murder cases in which rock music has been blamed for the actions of the killer. A healthy person does not kill because a song made violence sound cool, you had to be a little "touched" to begin with.

[mousemouse]

Hehe sometimes I'm just sooo glad that I don't live i that so-called "Home of the Free"... In Denmark they stopped banning books before I was even born. This also goes for the libraries.

[starrwriter]

Hehe sometimes I'm just sooo glad that I don't live i that so-called "Home of the Free"... In Denmark they stopped banning books before I was even born. This also goes for the libraries.
Judging from the memoirs of Karen Blixen (Isak Dinesen), Denmark wasn't exactly the home of the free when she lived there. She moved all the way to Africa to enjoy more freedom.

[subterranean]

Maybe mousemouse was born "recently".

[yellowfeverlime]

I don't even have nbanned books, but the concept is disgusting...

[baddad]

I am not really sure about this whole issue. Ideas can be dangerous, I believe. I don't think I would be OK with certain books easily circulating around. Do you want to see a book justifying/dignifying paedophilia sitting on the shelves of your local library? Or actions of KKK? How would you feel if your neighbour had these in their personal library? If those book were written in a way to imply that it would be OK to do certain things?

Now I am wondering if those who are against book bannings are all against banning of certain websites as well.

Freedom is ideas. Period.

Libraries need not stock publications deemed unseemly, evil, or whatever the criteria may be. Promoting access to such accused material need not happen. But ideas, ideas deemed 'bad', must also be free. A free people accept this inequity in order to preserve the very foundation of freedom. Some bad will always surface, but it is usually only the good that has any staying power other than as a curiosity......

Long live freedom brothers and sisters.........................art needs no shackles.....

[parap]

Some people already alluded to it, or said it straight out. I'll just mindlessly repeat it in slightly different words :)

The reason for banning books is all about power and the fear of losing it. Books can change people's minds and cause revolutions, or so the banning authorities think. My view is: if you are an authority and you are so convinced that what you are saying and doing is the truth and the best for mankind, then nothing should be able to change that, especially not some eccentric author who only a small handful of people are going to read. If you fear losing your power, then it means that you never held the truth or the best for mankind to begin with, and that you should accept that sooner or later you will either lose your power, or something will have to change drastically, with or without an author.

Rather simplistic, I realize, but I believe that is what it all comes down to.

As for age restrictions on books for children that some people seem to favor, I say: if the book is written for an adult, then even the smartest child will not understand it. Hence, nothing to worry about. Give the book to your child and see them throw it away after the first sentence, saying: "BORING!". If your child does happen to understand the book as well as an adult, then I say: your child is ready for that book, just like you are. In other words: no need for banning, and no need for restrictions.

[ShroomSniffer]

Some books just need to be banned. We don't need little kids running around reading books about how to make crystal meth now do we?

[baddad]

I can find the information on Crystal Meth right here on the internet. Banning a book will not bannish the idea inherent in any suspect book.

A federal minister here in Canada is trying to get the government to ban entry into this country by rap singer, 50 cent. the Minister believes the rapper has bad morals, glorifies crime, and generally disrupts lives with his sing-song messages. Years ago they tried to ban rock' n' roll because it made teenagers 'hysterical', governments around the world use demonization of an identifiable group as ammunition to quiet fresh ideas, to bury new ways of doing things. NOne of this is a good thing. In fact, when the government starts telling you what to read, think, express......you had better rebel.....or get buried under the thumb .......

[EAP]

Age restrictions are there because many people want to shelter their children from things they deem immoral, which are nevertheless an integral part of society in general and thus depicted freely in fiction.

Do I agree with it? I'll not go into that, but I sure do understand the reasoning behind them.

[baddad]

Age restrictions are there because many people want to shelter their children from things they deem immoral, which are nevertheless an integral part of society in general and thus depicted freely in fiction.

Do I agree with it? I'll not go into that, but I sure do understand the reasoning behind them.


hmmm.....EAP..................long time since you shared your wonderful wisdom............still rational I see.....

[CrashCourse08]

I don't think any book should be banned. If someone wants to learn, we shouldn't stop them. And yes, there's the argument that there are a lot of books out there that the younger and more innocent minds would do better without seeing. But the same goes with TV, and magazines they pick up while Mom's looking for the newest Oprah issue, and of course there are always random people who swear, arrogant to the fact that there are virgin ears in the room. You can't protect youth from all the world's faults, because they will always be there. And it's better for them to learn to know how to deal with bad news, the guilty pleasure of gossip in tabloids, the wrong doings of society, and other sinful media that everyone is bound to be exposed to eventually. And I know it's not just the youth they are trying to "protect" from these books, but honestly, the world is a dangerous place, and if we can't simply handle our reactions to a book...there's no way we can hold our own in life.

[yellowfeverlime]

I really agree! It is true! Especially since the fact that we have freedom of press, freedom of speech, and the fact that someday we will hear SOMETHING bad... like, it's not like in high school you won't ever hear your peer say a swear. In high school, the TEACHER'S swear more than the STUDENTS do! So, it doesn't make sense to ban books? Right!

[adm]

I don't think any book should be banned. If someone wants to learn, we shouldn't stop them. And yes, there's the argument that there are a lot of books out there that the younger and more innocent minds would do better without seeing. But the same goes with TV, and magazines they pick up while Mom's looking for the newest Oprah issue, and of course there are always random people who swear, arrogant to the fact that there are virgin ears in the room. You can't protect youth from all the world's faults, because they will always be there. And it's better for them to learn to know how to deal with bad news, the guilty pleasure of gossip in tabloids, the wrong doings of society, and other sinful media that everyone is bound to be exposed to eventually. And I know it's not just the youth they are trying to "protect" from these books, but honestly, the world is a dangerous place, and if we can't simply handle our reactions to a book...there's no way we can hold our own in life.


So, are you saying it's ok to learn how to make crystal meth and how to build a bomb big enough for a building like Oklahoma (book or internet)?
When does it stop people. When do we stand up and say child this book has bad language in it and you don't need to read (or hear) such words? Teachers (and people) when are you going to stand up and say that language is not necessary in public, keep it at home (if those are the values of your home)?

People, where is the accountability? Crashcourse08 states "the world is a dangerous place", and this is so true. Compare the value of books (their content not price) from 1900's, 1950, and today, to the morals in each of those eras. Crime has risen, swearing is now on TV and radio (yes, I know they didn't have TV in the 1900's), and disrespect from people are getting younger and younger. Children are not learning to respect their elders and they don't care of the consequenses of their actions. Why? Do mom and dad not care about their actions? Monkey see monkey do.

When do we take back our world?

[starrwriter]

So, are you saying it's ok to learn how to make crystal meth and how to build a bomb big enough for a building like Oklahoma (book or internet)?
IMO it's all right to publish books about making drugs and bombs because actually making them is already against the law. Outlawing knowledge of any kind is the first step toward totalitarianism. The road to hell is paved with good intentions like yours.


When do we stand up and say child this book has bad language in it and you don't need to read (or hear) such words?
It's the parents' responsibility to decide what their children read or see on TV. Parents shouldn't expect society to do their job.


When do we take back our world?
Who do you mean by "we"? Conservatives only? The world doesn't belong to one group. Live and let live.

[papayahed]

A group of parents in a local school district are trying to ban "This Boy's life" from the school curriculm. They cited fould language, violence and sexual content as the reasons. Have they turned on a TV lately?

[adm]

IMO it's all right to publish books about making drugs and bombs because actually making them is already against the law. Outlawing knowledge of any kind is the first step toward totalitarianism. The road to hell is paved with good intentions like yours.

So it's ok to have porn on the net/video stores/magazines when it is detremental to socity that WE ALL live in.



It's the parents' responsibility to decide what their children read or see on TV. Parents shouldn't expect society to do their job.

At what point in time did I say society? How responsible are when you think that society is doing the job, what job are you doing? If so, then we need to take it back and, what is this Conservative stuff? CrashCourse08 was complaining about it being a dangerous world out there. Why aren't we doing something about it instead of complaining about it?


Who do you mean by "we"? Conservatives only? The world doesn't belong to one group. Live and let live.

Live and let live got us the world we are in now. Are you happy, not content, but happy with what you see? If it begins with banning books, then so be it, however, it is I who dictates what MY children read, not you, not society, and not the government. I will put in my library weapons of information for my children to make well informed decisions on any step that they may need to take. They will know the good and evil of books, intranet, TV, and radio and what ever else feeds info. into our house, because I am raising my children, your not. I want them to be armed with knowledge and not to be ignorant and accept things for as they are. I want them to challenge anything and everything. I want them to ask why and then figure it out and make changes if need be. People, do not be complaincent in this world. Make a difference. If you believe that a book should not be banded from a school, that's fine, but if they do ban it, quit fussing, get the book, read it, and then make your OWN decision and keep it in your house if you want. Take charge of your life because it's your life, not mine. I've got enough troubles of my own that I don't need yours.

[starrwriter]

So it's ok to have porn on the net/video stores/magazines when it is detremental to society that WE ALL live in.
Who said anything about porn? We were discussing banning books on how to make explosives and drugs.


At what point in time did I say society?
You just did in the paragraph above.


How responsible are when you think that society is doing the job, what job are you doing?
I'm not personally responsible for the functioning of society. If you want to be, run for public office.


Live and let live got us the world we are in now. Are you happy, not content, but happy with what you see? If it begins with banning books, then so be it, however, it is I who dictates what MY children read, not you, not society, and not the government.
First you want laws to decide what all people are allowed to read, then you want to decide on your own what you and your family reads. You can't have it both ways.


Take charge of your life because it's your life, not mine. I've got enough troubles of my own that I don't need yours.
I am in charge of my own life and I want to keep it that way.

[RyuKid]

I can sort of go either way. I'm strongly against any book that spreads hate, like racism.

[kaka]

One of the most offensive aspects of banning is the implication that those imposing the ban are morally superior to others. (In some European countries there is provision for a total ban by a court in order to "maintain public morality". It's very seldom used but this goes way, way beyond anything like a ban from libraries or schools).

As for information on making bombs, producing one's own drugs and so on one can get that from a whole range of sources.

[Uncle Mikey]

I can sort of go either way. I'm strongly against any book that spreads hate, like racism.

Yes, but what if the definition of "hate" becomes fluid? I can find people who'd consider a book recommending voting for a particular political party as "hateful".

[The Unnamable]

Yes, but what if the definition of "hate" becomes fluid? I can find people who'd consider a book recommending voting for a particular political party as "hateful".

Exactly. This is a point that is difficult to counter. It seems to me that what the discussion here so far has made clear is the inherent contradictions of any ideological position that claims to promote freedom while at the same time limiting it. Can no one see the irony of a discussion about freedom of expression where contributors are reminded that certain topics are not allowed? Such a position is, essentially, “I am against censorship, except for the things that I think should be censored.” As soon as you have to resort to such an approach, your own political agenda becomes apparent. There will be plenty of justifications of such a position – ‘it’s wrong to expose children to this’, ‘it’s wrong to allow people to promote that’ but this only serves to expose, not hide, the inherent contradictions. Why not simply be honest and say that you are not in favour of freedom and then explain why? Such a view does, of course, presuppose that ‘I know better than you’, which is not a view that holders of it find laudable in the abstract. It also serves to generate opposition and a challenge to its validity, which probably accounts for why we don’t see it happen that often.

Louis Althusser makes a useful distinction between what we might call state power and state control. State power is maintained by what Althusser terms repressive structures, which are institutions like the law courts, prisons, the police force, and the army, which operate, in the last analysis, by external force. But the power of the state is also maintained more subtly, by seeming to secure the internal consent of its citizens, using what Althusser calls ideological structures or State ideological apparatuses. These are such groupings as political parties, schools, the media, churches, the family, and art (including literature) which foster an ideology - a set of ideas and attitudes - which is sympathetic to the aims of the state and the political status quo. Thus, each of us feels that we are freely choosing what is in fact being imposed upon us.

This Althusserian distinction is closely related to the notion of hegemony, which was given prominence by the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci (1891-1934). Gramsci contrasts rule, which is direct political control, which uses force when necessary, and hegemony, which is (as defined by Raymond Williams) 'the whole lived social process as practically organised by specific and dominant meanings, values and beliefs of a kind which can be abstracted as a "world-view" or "class outlook"' (Williams, Marxism and Literature Oxford University Press, 1977, p. 101). Williams relates hegemony to culture in general and to ideology in particular. Hegemony is like an internalised form of social control which makes certain views seem 'natural' or invisible so that they hardly seem like views at all, just 'the way things are'.

The 'trick' whereby we are made to feel that we are choosing when really we have no choice is called by Althusser interpellation. Capitalism, says Althusser, thrives on this trick: it makes us feel like free agents ('You can have any colour you like...') while actually imposing things upon us ('... as long as it's black'). Thus, democracy makes us feel that we are choosing the kind of government we have, but in practice the differences between political parties, once in power, are far fewer than the rhetorical gulfs between them. Interpellation is Althusser's term for the way the individual is encouraged to see herself or himself as an entity free and independent of social forces. It accounts for the operation of control structures not maintained by physical force, and hence for the perpetuation of a social set-up which concentrates wealth and power in the hands of the few.

[RobinHood3000]

Exactly. This is a point that is difficult to counter. It seems to me that what the discussion here so far has made clear is the inherent contradictions of any ideological position that claims to promote freedom while at the same time limiting it. Can no one see the irony of a discussion about freedom of expression where contributors are reminded that certain topics are not allowed? Such a position is, essentially, “I am against censorship, except for the things that I think should be censored.” As soon as you have to resort to such an approach, your own political agenda becomes apparent. There will be plenty of justifications of such a position – ‘it’s wrong to expose children to this’, ‘it’s wrong to allow people to promote that’ but this only serves to expose, not hide, the inherent contradictions. Why not simply be honest and say that you are not in favour of freedom and then explain why? Such a view does, of course, presuppose that ‘I know better than you’, which is not a view that holders of it find laudable in the abstract. It also serves to generate opposition and a challenge to its validity, which probably accounts for why we don’t see it happen that often.
Unnamable, you're sensationalizing the forum rules again. The Moderators and the Admin are not censoring anyone who does not submit to being censored, they are not waging a war on liberty, and they are not making moral judgments on what should and shouldn't be showed to the children of the world beyond genuine debate--they are a group of authorities who know the kind of environment they are trying to foster and are trying to foster it among only those people who want the same kind of environment. These forums are not a library in which books are wantonly banned if they contain profanity or controversial issues; a more comparable analogy would be a set of bookshelves at home, where one may pick and choose which books to keep and which books to leave for others to read.

[The Unnamable]

Robin,
why is it that you ignore all of the interesting, admittedly difficult, concepts in my posts and seek only to highlight any points which, in your eyes, could be construed as an attack? It seems that you are trying to police what I say, eager for any opportunity to convince others (preferably those with the means to ban me) that I am an undesirable subversive. I have no idea why you feel it necessary to do this but if by being ‘subversive’ I stimulate thought and provoke discussion, then I cannot see a problem. My points were meant to be taken in a much wider context than you suggest. Also, the fact that Althusser and his ilk refer to ideological apparatuses should alert us to the fact that such processes operate through many different institutions and contexts. To deny the significance of any one context, on whatever grounds, is simply to fail to see how his theory works. I have no desire to change any rules but if you are now saying that even discussing them in the abstract constitutes an offence, then I fail to see how that can be conducive to ‘genuine debate’.

You talk about ‘genuine debate’ but appear to have decided that this can only be achieved if views like mine are put in their proper place. Firstly, perhaps we define what is meant by ‘genuine debate’ very differently. Is it not permissible in such a debate to ask questions about the context in which that debate is being held, especially when such questions are relevant to the point I am making? Surely that gives a far better real world example than any discussion that deals solely in abstractions and hypothetical situations? Besides, and this is a key point for me, why not let people judge for themselves? Surely others can decide whether or not my points are valid? I made no comments about claims to moral superiority in the post to which you responded, attacked no one and simply gave my own considered opinion. In your definition of ‘genuine debate’ is that not allowed? I agree that the site owners “know the kind of environment they are trying to foster and are trying to foster it among only those people who want the same kind of environment.” That is their prerogative but that is not the same as saying that they wish to see open debate. This is not a criticism, merely an observation.

You might say that you are simply giving your considered opinion. However, by beginning with the assumption that I am simply criticising the site owners, I believe that you are intending that my views should be outlawed rather than merely challenged.

I said earlier that there would be justifications. In effect, it implies that a principle (which should surely be applicable to all situations, otherwise it's just an expedient) is not applicable in this situation. Who decides? I do not see this as indicative of hypocrisy or moral turpitude but as a clear example of precisely the kind of contradictory assumptions Althusser’s ‘interpellated’ individuals are bound to make. Your decision to demarcate according to context is simply an example of your ideological position. To me it makes no sense. The assumptions you make are not the same as the assumptions I make. That doesn't mean yours are right and mine are wrong.
Who is a freedom-fighter and who is a terrorist?

[RobinHood3000]

I ignore the greater/more difficult concepts because I consider myself unqualified and inadequately educated to address them. Satisfied?

The reason I took the position that I took was because, from my perspective, it appeared that the "irony" to which you referred was meant to be taken with regards to the Forums, the medium in which the post was made. If I am mistaken, then by all means, let me know, but do consider that misunderstandings can exist and may be the source of disagreement.

[kaka]

Earlier there was mention of banning books that deny the Holocaust. Some countries - including Germany, Austria and France - do in fact have such bans. I've always had the impression that in these countries such bans are mainly concerned with making a political statement about the kind of country that Germany, for example, is.

There was mention, too, of the possible effects of certain books on young minds - but NO mention at all that young people may encounter the same ideas in the playground, television and the internet ...

[The Unnamable]

I ignore the greater/more difficult concepts because I consider myself unqualified and inadequately educated to address them. Satisfied?

The reason I took the position that I took was because, from my perspective, it appeared that the "irony" to which you referred was meant to be taken with regards to the Forums, the medium in which the post was made. If I am mistaken, then by all means, let me know, but do consider that misunderstandings can exist and may be the source of disagreement.

Okay – but is there no irony (not a particularly harsh word to use) in what I pointed out? It hardly amounts to denouncing everyone as a charlatan.

Personally, I believe that those who burn books will also burn people.

[The Unnamable]

Earlier there was mention of banning books that deny the Holocaust. Some countries - including Germany, Austria and France - do in fact have such bans. I've always had the impression that in these countries such bans are mainly concerned with making a political statement about the kind of country that Germany, for example, is.
Although I fully understand why these countries do this, I would like the opportunity to consider the evidence for myself. Much as I despise the position of British historian, David Irving, I would not ban his books.

There was mention, too, of the possible effects of certain books on young minds - but NO mention at all that young people may encounter the same ideas in the playground, television and the internet ...
There is no mention either, that they are continually exposed to the propaganda of multi-national corporations.



An interesting dramatisation of some of the issues raised here can be found in David Mamet’s ‘Oleanna’.

[kaka]

Agreed. In Britain, for example, David Irving got his 'come-uppance' in a big way in a civil case. He chose to sue Deborah Lippstadt and Penguin Books for alleged defamation as they had called him a Holocaust denier, while he insisted that he was an entirely serious historian. As far as I know, it was the first time any English court had had to deal with a case of this kind. Anyway, Irving lost both the initial claim for damages and all subsquent appeals. Interestingly, the judges seemed to have an excellent grasp of the issues involved.

[Jack_Aubrey]

Not surprised by what the majority goes to in this poll.

[yellowfeverlime]

Can anyone tell me why some communities ban books about hitler? It makes no sense... we should be opening the world to that kind of stuff to stop it from happening instead of closing the world from it...

[barbara0207]

Hi everyone,
recently I read an extract from the book "The Day They Came To Arrest The Book" by Nat Hentoff. It is about banning Mark Twain's "Huckleberry Finn" from a high school library. After that I learned that there really is a list of banned books in the US, among them major works of literature such as JohnSteinbeck's "Of Mice and Men", J.D. Salinger's "A Catcher In The Rye" and Margaret Atwood's "A Handmaid's Tale". In other countries some of these books are compulsory or recommended reading for students aged 16 - 19.
I'd like to discuss the issue of banning books with you. What interests me most are the following questions:
1. Are you for or against banning certain books? Why?
2. Is there a list of banned books in your country?

[PeterL]

I don't think that any books should be banned, but many people think otherwise.

The ALA lists many books that have been banned or attacked. People have even tried to ban the Harry Potter books.

There is more information about fighting the banning of books at
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bannedbooksweek.htm

[cuppajoe_9]

The ALA lists many books that have been banned or attacked. People have even tried to ban the Harry Potter books.

And here is the reason, via Book-a-Minute classics:


Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is not just about magic; it is magic, for this single book is mysteriously comprised of two separate texts: there is the printed text that is experienced when the book is read, and there is the secret, more sinister text that is experienced when it is not read.

...


Harry Potter

I thought I was a lowly child; instead, I'm a wizard.


J. K. Rowling

Now that I have your attention, my pretties, here is how you perform satanic rituals and become demons.




THE ENDhttp://www.rinkworks.com/bookaminute/b/rowling.stone.shtml

To be frank, I'm surprised that people aren't more up-in-arms about Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials, on the grounds that, unlike Rowling's opus, it really is heathen propoganda (the heathens, in this case, being atheists and not pagans).

As you may have gathered, I loathe censorship.

[Orual]

I am not for banning books in any public library. I like books. I read banned books. Still, I'm going to go out on a limb here (please don't throw things; it is hard enough to balance) and say that I do believe that there are some books that are better off not taught in middle schools and high schools. A Catcher in the Rye, for instance. Perhaps the author has a valid point (I believe he does), but it is perhaps the most missed point in all of young adult literature. Combine that with the sexuality, language, and the fact that teachers very often don't really know what they're teaching, and A Catcher in the Rye can be one mess, unproductive book. I do not blame any superintendant who bans the book.

The problem with banning books naturally comes because it is hard to draw a line. Ban The Catcher in the Rye, well, what about Of Mice and Men, George curses, too. And then, why not ban Fahrenheit 451? We don't want a bunch of kids fighting imaginary political enemies. In that case, The Chronicles of Narnia will have to go, too. Made-up things are bad business.

So...I think I may have shot holes in my own argument. I see both sides. I guess my sum is that I am acceptant only of schools banning books for explicit language, violence, and sexual content.

[cuppajoe_9]

There's a difference between not teaching The Catcher in the Rye and not letting people read it. A big difference.

[cows]

Banning books is a product of social retardation if you ask me. What happens to any tangible object that is banned? Demand increases. Unless the banning of books is a cunning plot to raise their sales, which would cause me to involentarily orgasm, it's a fart emitted by the incessant whining of people with a stick up their rear. (sorry about putting orgasm and fart so close together)

If i write a book, I hope it is banned in the US for a few years. It will sell more and I'll know I gave temporary meaning to some stagnant lives.

That said, is there another opinion out there? I want to know the reasoning behind people who believe books should be banned.

[Orual]

There's a difference between not teaching The Catcher in the Rye and not letting people read it. A big difference.

Hence the reason that I differentiated between a school ban and a public ban.

[cuppajoe_9]

Hence the reason that I differentiated between a school ban and a public ban.A school can quite easily carry a book in its library without teaching it. Removing the book from the ciriculum is questionable, but removing it from the library is insanity.

[Adras]

Haha...you know what is funny...alot of the books mentioned above my highschool librarian has encourage me too read...On my own I found Fahrenheit 451 and if you can understand it may just be one of the most profound books for me. I have an entire list of books I plan on readng currently I am reading the Communist Manifesto, Dantes Divine Comedy, and Utopia...Next will be not in any order but eventually: Fatherland, A Clock Work Orange, Battlefield Earth: Saga of the Year 300, Alice in Wonderland, The Prince, Seize the Day, Catch-22, The Catcher in the Rye, The Time Machine, The Republic, 15,000 Useful Phrases, Beowulf, Don Juan. I'm nearly 17 and it saddens me that most of the people in my grade could read these books multiple times and miss the point. They probably would never take the time to read one of these books if it wasn't assigned. I can credit my dad for my intrest in books that provoke thought. He is a very avid supporter of Socrates. Thanks Dad. Banning books, pointless as others stated it increases demand. Just don't legalize pot.

[lfm]

hello how can i teach literature to students?

[JohnDoe]

Good day,

I am not sure who said it but: "Any book worth banning is a book worth reading." There are books that have messages that are detrimental to society- anything advocating hate crimes, for example. However, if one book is banned, for whatever reason, there is little legal distance to cover before any book can be banned.

In my opinion, it is better to let the court of public opinion sort out what is worth reading. If a book has any credence it will rise.

Cheery-Bye

[bazarov]

There are no moral or immoral books, only good and bad books. Therefore, I am against bans.
In my country nothing is forbidden, we were reading (actually, they did) Catcher in the Rye at age of 14.

[MonicaGabriella]

Hey, cuppajoe_9... I had a question about the banning of Harry Potter books...

Harry Potter


I thought I was a lowly child; instead, I'm a wizard.


J. K. Rowling


Now that I have your attention, my pretties, here is how you perform satanic rituals and become demons.




THE END

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...

[Durgamol]

It is not the book that should be banned - it is some people who should never read it. In my country the only banned book i can think of is "Mein Kampf". I understand why. But i still read it.

[PeterL]

Writing is the magic. Writers are wizards. Any book that that describes something that isn't observable in the world that generally observed by others is a candidate for banning, especially if it is contrary to a particular set of beliefs. Some religions have banned books that didn't agree with their scriptures.

[barbara0207]

Writing is the magic. Writers are wizards. Any book that that describes something that isn't observable in the world that generally observed by others is a candidate for banning, especially if it is contrary to a particular set of beliefs. Some religions have banned books that didn't agree with their scriptures.

Yes, they have. But America is not the country of one religion. And even a ban on religious grounds is questionable, much more so in a country that considers itself "the land of the free" (national anthem). Is it no longer the country for people "yearning to breathe free" (Emma Lazarus, inscription on the Statue of Liberty)?
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?

PS: Somewhere I read statistics how many murders the average American child (and probably meanwhile the European child, too) watches a day. But I lost the statistics Can anyone help?

[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.

[Zee.]

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

And that's how I feel. I may absolutely despise what you say, but i'd give the world to allow you to say it. Because when you fight for the rights of others, to say how they feel, to write what they want. You're fighting for your own.

Regardless.

[jon1jt]

Look I know people are going to come down on me for what I'm about to say, but I think we should ban religious books, I'm sorry---they divide people and nations and inevitably cause wars and mass murder.

If we ban such texts they would move to an oral tradition that would evolve into obscurity.

[JBI]

Look I know people are going to come down on me for what I'm about to say, but I think we should ban religious books, I'm sorry---they divide people and nations and inevitably cause wars and mass murder.

If we ban such texts they would move to an oral tradition that would evolve into obscurity.

You don't need religious texts to kill people - Europeans, believing in the same text, under the same church even, butchered each other. What makes one think that if these texts didn't exist, anything would be different.

[jon1jt]

You don't need religious texts to kill people - Europeans, believing in the same text, under the same church even, butchered each other. What makes one think that if these texts didn't exist, anything would be different.

The eradication of religious books would only be a first step toward peace. The butchering you speak of was justified by each sect and their interpretation of text. Religion has always prescribed to the mantra, the end justifies the means. Take away the collective vision of an end and you have no means.

[Virgil]

The eradication of religious books would only be a first step toward peace. The butchering you speak of was justified by each sect and their interpretation of text. Religion has always prescribed to the mantra, the end justifies the means. Take away the collective vision of an end and you have no means.

You can say the same thing about communism, and that claimed that religion was the opiate of the people. Killing other humans is a human phenomena; all it requires is justification. If no religion existed, something else would justify it. Religion isn't the problem, it's the excuse on hand at that moment. Some other excuse would exist.

[Dark Muse]

As highly critical I am of orginized religion, I do not think that relgious texts should be banned and I agree what if it were not religion there would be fighing over something else. It is just in human nature to have war, and they will pick up any excuse on hand in which to justify it to themselves.

[jon1jt]

You can say the same thing about communism, and that claimed that religion was the opiate of the people. Killing other humans is a human phenomena; all it requires is justification. If no religion existed, something else would justify it. Religion isn't the problem, it's the excuse on hand at that moment. Some other excuse would exist.

Communism is dead and nobody seriously believes it is a viable alternative to market capitalism today. Religion, on the other hand, is alive and flourishing around the world, and if you look at the major regions experiencing political and social upheavals it is religious text that has stood to justify action (means) against the aggressor. It's just that the media never reports that dimension of the conflict. Of course it wouldn't because it would then actually be doing its job.

[JBI]

You have to also keep in mind, banning religious texts would need to extend further than that - Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripedes, And so on, St. John of the Cross, Dante, and so on, Bach's religious music, Mozart's Mass and Requiem, and so on, and so on. I think, from an historical perspective, one must also look at the good that has been done because of Religion in this world. I don't believe in Jesus, but I am able to see the kindness and humility in his teachings. I don't believe in Vishnu, or Krishna, or any of the others, yet I am able to see the wisdom in the Vedas.

Banning books to stop ideas? That's ridiculous. One should encourage reading these books if one wants to create peace.

[jon1jt]

You have to also keep in mind, banning religious texts would need to extend further than that - Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripedes, And so on, St. John of the Cross, Dante, and so on, Bach's religious music, Mozart's Mass and Requiem, and so on, and so on.


No no no no no no no, and so on. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Kill the source of the infestation and you kill the pests as in a domino effect. Now don't think for a second that I'm suggesting that Homer or Bach will die suddenly because of society banning religious texts. The books and pieces of music you mention are forms of art in the highest sense, having evolved over the centuries and taking on new shape and meaning. Nor have I ever once heard of anyone committing a war or mass suicide other than in the name of one's interpretation of a religious text. References made to original text in stories or music will fall into obscurity the way the pre-Socratics have. I compare religious-inspired art to the pre-Socratics because the latter consist of fragments of what the Ancient Greek world may have had at their disposal of them. Today nobody gives a hoot about the pre-Socratics, yet they were once revered by important thinkers of their day, like Plato, Aristotle, and of course, Saint Socrates.



I think, from an historical perspective, one must also look at the good that has been done because of Religion in this world.

Somebody used this same line of reasoning over in the homework thread, so I'll tell you the same thing I told him with a slight spin: One equally stands to learn something good at a job shoveling horse manure. That said, the cost of religion far outweighs its benefits.

[Chava]

You can say the same thing about communism, and that claimed that religion was the opiate of the people.

But Virg! Religion IS the opiate of the people!

Yeah, I'm sorry, couldn't resist. :) Banning books is a dreadful thought, and bookburnings actually cause my heart to break a little.

[bazarov]

Communism is dead and nobody seriously believes it is a viable alternative to market capitalism today.

communism - democracy
socialism - capitalism

Also, China : communism and capitalism.

And communism is not dead, socialism maybe is.


I would ban some, some people just aren't smart enough to realize something is bad for them. On the other hand, if someone is really smart and want to read it, he will find the way. So no problem for all!

[JBI]

No no no no no no no, and so on. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Kill the source of the infestation and you kill the pests as in a domino effect. Now don't think for a second that I'm suggesting that Homer or Bach will die suddenly because of society banning religious texts. The books and pieces of music you mention are forms of art in the highest sense, having evolved over the centuries and taking on new shape and meaning. Nor have I ever once heard of anyone committing a war or mass suicide other than in the name of one's interpretation of a religious text. References made to original text in stories or music will fall into obscurity the way the pre-Socratics have. I compare religious-inspired art to the pre-Socratics because the latter consist of fragments of what the Ancient Greek world may have had at their disposal of them. Today nobody gives a hoot about the pre-Socratics, yet they were once revered by important thinkers of their day, like Plato, Aristotle, and of course, Saint Socrates.




Somebody used this same line of reasoning over in the homework thread, so I'll tell you the same thing I told him with a slight spin: One equally stands to learn something good at a job shoveling horse manure. That said, the cost of religion far outweighs its benefits.

Now you are discriminating. The Greek Tragedies are religious texts - they are plays written for a religious festival. Bach's, for instance, Passions are religious texts - you take away the Bible, you take away the text, and destroy the music. You cannot have both. If you are to ban Religious literature, you can't only ban The Bible, but the Koran, Upanishads, And all other forms must go to, and everything they touch. You'll end up with very few texts that way, and the same amount of war, I merely wanted to point out the absurdity of such a statement "Let's ban them".

[kiki1982]

I agree with JBI and Dark Muse.

If one destroys the nest, but not the mice, the mice will keep on breeding. The key to eradicate the mice is to close the hole where they come into your house and maybe take the food that is there for them away.

Taking the bible and other religious texts away is not eradicating war, because people will keep on finding grounds on which to start one. Mostly religion is not even the main cause but a handy tool to make the larger community agree with you.
The real key to eradicate war as such would be to eradicate naivety and populism, which is of course practically impossible...

Banning all religious texts would be a greater loss than it is worth, as JBI pointed out. We would have to eradicate half of the arts. When there is not the original text to refer to, people seek other types of justification. If the bible is not there anymore, then they'll use Bach.

[NickAdams]

The text has nothing to do with it. I look at it as fiction and these text have literary merit. I see every text as having the potential to spawn a religion. I can wake up tomorrow and start preaching the gospel of Poe, Tolkien, Humbert Humbert, Dostoevsky.

Religion is formed by people not books. Religion is just one of many divides. Take away religion and you still have racism take that away and you have nationalism, take that away and you have regionalism, classism, sexism, ageism etc.

[kiki1982]

here, here (do they write it like that?)

[jon1jt]

communism - democracy
socialism - capitalism

Also, China : communism and capitalism.

They call that a mixed economy, but I never suggested that aspects of communism were dead. I said communisim is dead.


And communism is not dead, socialism maybe is.

I attended a communist meeting during grad school once and the seven people in attendance included two audience members sipping on a Starbucks latte while my friend and I went for a good laugh.

The Little Red Book's dialectic materialism brand is dead, trust me.


if someone is really smart and want to read it, he will find the way. So no problem for all!

Well sure, I acknowledge that. I also acknowledge that Cuban cigars are banned by US Customs and the number of aficionados who throw caution to the wind and light up their smuggled Cohiba in public is actually very small.

Because some hooligans will break the law is not a justification for not having the law.

[bazarov]

They call that a mixed economy, but I never suggested that aspects of communism were dead. I said communisim is dead.


Socialism is economic system, communism is political system - they are not directly connected.


I attended a communist meeting during grad school once and the seven people in attendance included two audience members sipping on a Starbucks latte while my friend and I went for a good laugh.

The Little Red Book's dialectic materialism brand is dead, trust me.

If it's dead in NY, that doesn't mean it's dead in the rest of the world.


P.S. This is OT, so if you want visit Orwell subforum.

[jon1jt]

Socialism is economic system, communism is political system - they are not directly connected.

Read The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital and then come back and tell me if those books only deal with the overthrow of a political system. Communism in its ideal form has no political system, my friend. Read.

Anyway, I'm not going to get into splitting hairs about this when you still have not addressed my book ban suggestion.



If it's dead in NY, that doesn't mean it's dead in the rest of the world.

Feel free to enlighten us about where the workers of the world are gathering for the big overthrow as the spirit of the age is pushing dialectical materialism into its final stage. (I bet there are secret meetings happening in Bosnia right now, just a hunch. :D)


P.S. This is OT, so if you want visit Orwell subforum.

Yes we are OT because you steered the discussion away from my book ban idea other than suggesting that some hooligans will carry on religion if their books are banned, and I responded to that and you failed here to follow up with anything significant. Therefore, you have received a Go To Jail card. Either pay $50, use a "Get out of jail free" card, or roll doubles. Sayonara

[Drkshadow03]

Look I know people are going to come down on me for what I'm about to say, but I think we should ban religious books, I'm sorry---they divide people and nations and inevitably cause wars and mass murder.

If we ban such texts they would move to an oral tradition that would evolve into obscurity.


The eradication of religious books would only be a first step toward peace. The butchering you speak of was justified by each sect and their interpretation of text. Religion has always prescribed to the mantra, the end justifies the means. Take away the collective vision of an end and you have no means.

You do realize your entire argument is based on "the ends justifies the means" as well. It is rather ironic.

The end: I want world peace, no wars, and little hippies singing Koombaya.

The means: Let's ban us some religious books.

Besides, it would never work anyway. People have tried to ban certain religions in the past, and it didn't work. The religious would either move to a different country that allowed them to practice openly., would read and practice in the privacy of their homes, and/or hold worship in secret in basements and such. There would be no practical way to enforce it. Not to mention to have the various countries of the world many of them dominated by religious culture agree to do it. So basically this is intellectual masterbation of the worst sort; pure wishful thinking without any practical application that it will ever come true in your lifetime.

Also where do you draw the line about what to ban? Since your main concern seems to be books that cause violence . . . do you ban any book that promotes violence and division? Do you ban Mein Kampf with the religious book? Do you ban the Communist Manifesto? Do you ban Che Guevara's various political writings? Who gets to define what books promote violence and may lead to war?

Your pragmatism is morally and ethically disgusting, spitting in the face of freedom; people should have the right to live the lives they wish as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others.

[jon1jt]

You do realize your entire argument is based on "the ends justifies the means" as well. It is rather ironic.

To my understanding this thread asks whether books should or should not be banned and that we should support our position. So then, the very nature of the question sets it up for an end justifies the means. I am throwing out an idea---not a starting point. You want grandiose and I can't give you that here. I can tell you that history has shown time and again that mass murder is motivated and justified in the name of God and driven by the moral fervor of opportunistic leaders both inside and outside organized religion-- converging around religous text, and that someday something will have to be done about it. You don't like to hear that, but democracy is not the making of a "social contract" that states that we all must tolerate those whose ways of life and actions go beyond the moral sphere.


The end: I want world peace, no wars, and little hippies singing Koombaya.

:lol: Ah so you've found us out! Yes, we are hippies and we want peace and we want it now, and we're not pacifists either. We believe in singing Koombaya while dressing guys like you up in Tye-Dye and piercing your ear, then send you home to mommy. :p


The means: Let's ban us some religious books.

Ahh, another one who likes to compare apples and oranges. :rolleyes:
Let's see---you are comparing banning bibles to mass murder in the name of God. Okay.


Besides, it would never work anyway.

If there is objective truth and value---and I believe that there is---then through an intelligent, patient, disciplined search we have the capacity to derive absolute truths. The basic problem is that you're too busy objecting that there is no objective view, so it's hardly surprising that in your (postmodern) worldview nothing gets accomplished.



People have tried to ban certain religions in the past, and it didn't work.

You're wrong. Look at the damage inflicted by Third Reich Programmes. Another example is Saddam's treatment of the Kurds with the use of poisonous gas---and to think he had the means to do far more damage, refraining only after international pressure.



There would be no practical way to enforce it.

Well, there are practical and enforceable ways to erase religious books from the world. How does religious fanatacism flourish? Education. Islamic fanatics use Madrassas as incubators for the group's long term objectives. Another example is democratic state fanatacism in which elections and public education serve as mechanisms for inculcating virtues and moderating tensions. Education has always served to build or tare down.


Also where do you draw the line about what to ban? Since your main concern seems to be books that cause violence . . . do you ban any book that promotes violence and division? Do you ban Mein Kampf with the religious book? Do you ban the Communist Manifesto? Do you ban Che Guevara's various political writings? Who gets to define what books promote violence and may lead to war?

I draw the line at the moral sphere, which I mentioned earlier. The moral sphere holds that everyone's way of life matters and must be taken into account and respected to the degree possible. Once cruelty and the lack of respect for human life is inititiated against the innocent for any significant period of time---that corrodes and erodes the foundations of justice and civil society---then that privilege is given up, relinquished.

I reject your relativist claim that no person or group has the capacity to judge for the whole. There is a right way, there is a wrong way, and there are ways of life that can be tested through observation but more so by being lived. I respect every way of life and every point of view only to the extent that it doesn't impinge on the moral sphere. When it does, openness must be used like a hammer to smash moral dilemmas. Even democracy is not that stupid.



Your pragmatism is morally and ethically disgusting, spitting in the face of freedom; people should have the right to live the lives they wish as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others.

Let me get this straight: you reject my morals and ethics when you have no morals or ethics. I admit that banning a religious text is an abominable act and one that mustn't be taken likely, whereas relativists cut out the eyes of the world while at the same time asking us to see how sensible you all are.

[kiki1982]

Sorry, I'll have to do this outside the current discussion, but it's on topic...

I yesterday found out from my husband, who teaches English at Trier University in Germany, that he had to give a lesson on swear-words in English!

The teachers had even written a fact-sheet on it.
It included everything: c*t, f*ck, sh*t en even the really bad one with the mother...
Amazing.
It just puts the banning books for bad language in perspective.
Are those people not a little over-reacting when people are taught in other countries how to swear in a different language on a scale from 1 to 10?

I don't think the N-word was included, though.

[Drkshadow03]

I'm going to skip over your first two points because, well, they're rather pointless, and have little relevancy to my main point, which seemed to go over your head.



Ahh, another one who likes to compare apples and oranges. :rolleyes:
Let's see---you are comparing banning bibles to mass murder in the name of God. Okay.

This is a fallacious argument known as false dilemma, false dichotomy or the either/or fallacy. The non-logic behind this statement goes something like this: Either you think mass murder is okay and therefore banning bibles is wrong or mass murder is wrong and therefore banning bibles are okay. But of course one can also think that mass murders and banning bibles are both morally wrong. Not to mention since I clearly divided one as the "means" and the other as your "ends" I am not actually comparing anything, and this reveals a poor lack of reading skills.

Even if I did make such a comparison, and agreed that one was MORE wrong than the other, it still would not have any bearing on the fact that the other one is still morally wrong as well. Two wrongs don't make a right last time I checked.



If there is objective truth and value---and I believe that there is---then through an intelligent, patient, disciplined search we have the capacity to derive absolute truths. The basic problem is that you're too busy objecting that there is no objective view, so it's hardly surprising that in your (postmodern) worldview nothing gets accomplished.

So when you start an intelligent, patient, disciplined search for truth instead of the nonsense you've been babbling so far let me know. The fact that you find my ideas "postmodern" rather than libertarian or Objectivist or Aristotelian or Kantian or Judaic shows you need to pay closer attention.



You're wrong. Look at the damage inflicted by Third Reich Programmes. Another example is Saddam's treatment of the Kurds with the use of poisonous gas---and to think he had the means to do far more damage, refraining only after international pressure.

You mean Judaism is gone from the face of the earth? ::Stares at Menorah on his shelf::

The Kurds have been wiped off the face of the planet? Not to mention the Kurds are an ethnic group, not a religion. So this is really confusing matters. No one is disagreeing that these are horribly immoral acts, but this completely ignores the original point.

In case, you've loss sight of the original point you were responding to, I wrote: "People have tried to ban religions, and it didn't work."

The Third Reich tried to destroy/ban/annihilate Judaism world-wide. It didn't work. I'm living testament to that fact. You haven't proved me wrong at all.

By the way, the fact that you're concrete examples of effective means of banning religion pretty much are limited thus far to Nazis and dictators doesn't bode well for the morality and ethics of the idea. Look at the sort of people who would want to accomplish that goal in the first place.


Well, there are practical and enforceable ways to erase religious books from the world. How does religious fanatacism flourish? Education. Islamic fanatics use Madrassas as incubators for the group's long term objectives. Another example is democratic state fanatacism in which elections and public education serve as mechanisms for inculcating virtues and moderating tensions. Education has always served to build or tare down.

It is not practical or enforceable as I hinted at above because such religious people are only going to go underground and practice their religions in the secrecy of their home as history can attest to with crackdowns on Catholicism in England, Judaism in Spain, etc.

The only real practical way I can think of to enforce the erasure of religious books would be to play Big Brother and bug homes of anyone you might suspect practicing religion; then you'd have to be willing to arrest religious folks and put them in jail for breaking the law for practicing their religion. Or worse. See the so-called examples you provided above.

So you would then be jailing people who have done nothing wrong other than wanting to read their book and practice their beliefs in peace, putting them in squalid conditions where one can die from disease and suffer from the inevitable violence always involved in captivity situations. So much for having the objective moral high-ground.

Now if you think I am offering a slippery slope argument, then by all means offer up a realistic method of banning religious books that could actually work. I am all ears. You mention Madrassas as a breeding ground for religious fanatacism. Fine you've isolated education as a source of reproducing religion, but that still doesn't address the practical question at all. How are you going to get sovereign Muslim nations to crack down on Madrassas? How are you going to take religious texts out of people's homes? What do you do if those people say, "No thanks. I think we'll be keeping our religious schools. Thank you very much."

If you can't answer that questionthan this has been nothing more than an intellectual masterbation exercise that relishes in simply stating imaginary ends, without having any real practical methods for accomplishing them.



I draw the line at the moral sphere, which I mentioned earlier. The moral sphere holds that everyone's way of life matters and must be taken into account and respected to the degree possible. Once cruelty and the lack of respect for human life is inititiated against the innocent for any significant period of time---that corrodes and erodes the foundations of justice and civil society---then that privilege is given up, relinquished.

You do realize you basically restated right here what I already said in my first post: "[P]eople should have the right to live the lives they wish as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others."

The problem, of course, is that as long as some or most believers in a religion can behave civilly than those who practice that religion have the right to exist and practice in peace. Since that in fact does seem to be the case, I find your idea about banning religious texts to be immoral and unethical. You're collectively punishing peaceful people for their way of life.

For me as a Jew, you would be erasing an important cultural artifact and a huge part of my life.


Let me get this straight: you reject my morals and ethics when you have no morals or ethics. I admit that banning a religious text is an abominable act and one that mustn't be taken likely, whereas relativists cut out the eyes of the world while at the same time asking us to see how sensible you all are.

Oh, I have a very strong sense of morality and ethics; I have no idea where you got this whacky idea that I'm a moral relativist, must be the figments of your overactive imagination.

If you're now admitting that banning a religious text is an abominable act because you would be collectively punishing those who are committing no harm by conflating them with those who do commit harm through the use of religion, then we have nothing to argue about anymore. You apparently saw the central mistake and intellectual flaw underlying your idea that we should ban religious texts, and you've come to realize why I called you immoral and unethical. There's nothing more to say, and you seemed to have have learn a valuable lesson today.

[jon1jt]

I'm going to skip over your first two points because, well, they're rather pointless, and have little relevancy to my main point, which seemed to go over your head.



The Third Reich tried to destroy/ban/annihilate Judaism world-wide. It didn't work. I'm living testament to that fact. You haven't proved me wrong at all. Try again, if you wish.

And your only point is that banning religious books is a bad idea---a very bad idea, in fact, because you're a practicing Jew who sits in the privacy of your home glancing wistfully over at the menorah that hangs as a beacon of religious hope. And maybe it is, but I don't think so. You say Hitler's Programmes" didn't work" and I agree they didn't work, but not likely for the same reasons.

The world did not unify for the express purpose of saving Judaism or the Jews from concentration camps. The resistance in the US under Roosevelt was to not involve itself with the "Jewish problem." Consider the case of those hundreds of German-Jews that Hitler expelled who set sail to a NY port only to be told by Roosevelt et al that they had to go back. Very tolerant of Americans at the time, eh?

YES, Judaism survived, but only as an unintended consequence of the outcome of the war as the allies had one objective: to crush the spead of fascism. I bring up this little piece of history to point out that even today religion is still vulnerable with the rise in global religious violence in tandem with a decreasing popular appreciation. I see your point---violence alone will not likely destroy religion let alone its bibles, but I strongly advise to never say never.



This is a fallacious argument known as false dilemma, false dichotomy or the either/or fallacy.

I'd much rather you make your point than showboat, especially that I took that class too. :rolleyes: Anyway...


The non-logic behind this statement goes something like this: Either you think mass murder is okay and therefore banning bibles is wrong or mass murder is wrong and therefore banning bibles are okay.

How insidious to reduce what I said to one sentence and then use it as a starting point when you know it's more nuanced than this and I told you so in my first paragraph which you conveniently sidestepped. It would be as stupid for me to believe that such a ban would bring about the end of religion as it was that group of religious leaders who crucifed a bearded so-called Messiah in the name of ending his religion.

My larger point is that if toleration has no limits then there is no moral sphere---but I believe there must be one that takes into consideration action weighed against public harm. The one constant of religion in history is the violence perpetrated in the name of god, and society has failed to discuss this openly because of the social taboo, with placards of tolerance that dress the halls of public education buildings while private schools like Yeshiva have little interest in toleration as their secular studies program has to be required by law rather than voluntarily promoted.

Religion is a cult and religious books are the lifeblood of cults in so far as sustaining and extending cult ideology. You believe that religion is somehow above the law as well as their books that tell membership how to live and how to be obey god, even when that means people become inspired by a verse or passage and go out and kill and the murderous retaliations that it often triggers.


Two wrongs don't make a right last time I checked.

Profound. :rolleyes: So basically what you're saying is that we ought to just leave things as they are and allow people to continue to die in the name of God with no end in sight. Got it.


So when you start an intelligent, patient, disciplined search for truth instead of the nonsense you've been babbling so far let me know.

History babbles the truth too, and so does the rise in religious violence around the world. Imagine if others voiced their "real" opinion about religion rather than in living rooms or in the attics of their minds, we'd be having a much different discussion here.


The fact that you find my ideas "postmodern" rather than libertarian or Objectivist or Aristotelian or Kantian or Judaic shows you need to pay closer attention.

An objectivism that promotes religion beyond the religions of the almighty dollar???? :lol::lol: Aristotlean??? Kant...as you mean Kant's moral imperative? Kant acknowledges a moral threshold, you don't, which leaves me to think that you mentioned Kant either to sound bright or because you have no idea that the moral imperative is MORAL. Last point here. What the hell does Judaic have anything to do about the topic of banning bibles?? :lol:

I mentioned postmodern in the sense that you see no such system as having a legitimate moral sphere, let alone a breaking of the moral sphere, which is the basis of American law. Unfortunately law and politics have sold out to the religious barons' doctrine of religious tolerance.


There are examples of some of the old pagan religions disappearing because of banning, but of course we still have some of their texts ironically enough.

Look, old pagan religions disappeared because the practice was a fad and people outgrew them because they were seen for what they were, stupid. So it doesn't surprise me that the books are still around.

Again I acknowledge that banning religious books is impossible to do overnight, which is why if it were to be done it would have to come with many many years of education to replace all the herd thinking it has acquired with one in which people can think for themselves.


It had nothing to do with banning texts. So we even have some evidence that banning texts might not be an effective method for banning religions and it might require something more. Not to mention many of these works were originally transfered through Oral traditions, so that blows that other theory of yours also out of the water that a viable Oral Tradition couldn't keep these religions alive anyway without texts.

In a previous post I acknowledged that banning the bible would result in its continuation in basements and backalley rooms. that's not a license, however, to stand idly by.

Because some hooligans are going to break the law is not a justification for not having the law.

I think banning bibles would result in a new oral tradition, and it would be my hope that religion would become what it truly is, a mythology.

Also relevant in this regard is that bibles would have to be phased out rather than banned. This said in previous post:


Kill the source of the infestation and you kill the pests as in a domino effect. Now don't think for a second that I'm suggesting that Homer or Bach will die suddenly because of society banning religious texts. The books and pieces of music you mention are forms of art in the highest sense, having evolved over the centuries and taking on new shape and meaning. Nor have I ever once heard of anyone committing a war or mass suicide other than in the name of one's interpretation of a religious text. References made to original text in stories or music will fall into obscurity the way the pre-Socratics have. I compare religious-inspired art to the pre-Socratics because the latter consist of fragments of what the Ancient Greek world may have had at their disposal of them. Today nobody gives a hoot about the pre-Socratics, yet they were once revered by important thinkers of their day, like Plato, Aristotle, and of course, Saint Socrates.



By the way, the fact that you're concrete examples of effective means of banning religion pretty much was limited to Nazis and dictators only demonstrates how bad an idea it would be to attempt to ban religious books and what would really need to be undertaken to accomplish these goals. Look at the sort of people you would have to align yourself with morally to accomplish your goal, look at the sort of people who have wanted to accomplish that goal in the first place.

There are countless examples of religious violence around the world, but religion has also killed in another far more subtle, yet equally violent way: through the inculcation of blind obedience. Religion is the blacking out of free thought. Objectivism denied.


The only real practical way I can think of to enforce the erasure of religious books would be to play Big Brother and bug homes of anyone you might suspect practicing religion; then you'd have to be willing to arrest religious folks and put them in jail for breaking the law for practicing their religion. Or worse. See the so-called examples you provided above.

You see, this is a scare tactic, a propaganda tool used by the collective to have us buy into how much worse life might be if we didn't tow the line. Silent coercion.


So you would then be jailing people who have done nothing wrong other than wanting to read their book and practice their beliefs in peace, putting them in squalid conditions where one can die from disease and suffer from the inevitable violence always involved in captivity situations. So much for having the objective moral high-ground.

Read my position again, junior.


Now if you think I am offering a slippery slope argument, then by all means offer up a realistic method of banning religious books that could actually work.

I already have---change the education system to one in which free thinking is promoted and not obstructed as it now is. Religion would die a fast and painless death and the world would be better for it, and I might even invite over friends and serve extra big jugs of wine and M&Ms to celebrate.



You do you realize you basically restated right here what I already said in my first post: "people should have the right to live the lives they wish as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others."

Yes, but with the provision that if their actions repeatedly violate the moral sphere then something would be done about it. Interesting how you left that part out. :rolleyes:



For me as a Jew, you would be erasing an important cultural artifact and a huge part of my life.

No I wouldn't because with my proposal religion will survive for many years to come. I am talking about phasing it out, not brutally removing it in some Hitler-like fashion.

--
Last point, your point about the Kurds not being a religious group is absurd when the region is divided into three sects, each with their own understanding and workings of the Koran. Wake up.


I must leave you now my friend as I must go to church and then come home and pray all night and beg god's forgiveness. Yeah right.

[Drkshadow03]

My larger point is that if toleration has no limits then there is no moral sphere---but I believe there must be on that takes into consideration action weighed against public harm. The one constant of religion in history is the violence perpetrated in the name of god, and society has failed to discuss this openly because of the social taboo, with placards of tolerance that dress the halls of public education buildings while private schools like Yeshiva have little interest in toleration as their secular studies program has to be required by law rather than voluntarily promoted.

Religion is a cult and religious books are the lifeblood of cults in so far as sustaining and extending cult ideology. You believe that religion is somehow above the law as well as their books that tell membership how to live and how to be obey god, even when that means people become inspired by a verse or passage and go out and kill and the murderous retaliations that it often triggers.

If a person reads a religious passage and decides to go on a mass-shooting spree, they should be arrested. No one said toleration should be boundless. But for some strange reason you keep implying that I think the opposite. The toleration principle should apply to individual conduct and not groups. I think this is our biggest difference in thought on this subject.


So basically what you're saying is that we ought to just leave things as they are and allow people to continue to die in the name of God with no end in sight. Got it.

No! Go right ahead and criticize religious extremism. Fight the fanatics: Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindus, in whatever form or flavor they come in. I'd even help you with that fight. But the moment, you start trying to abolish religion altogether you're no longer my ally, and as far as I'm concerned you're not any different from those extremists, religious or otherwise, who violate people's rights and freedoms.

One last point, every time you say promoting so-called freethinking in education will be the panacea to religion, I can't help but think that you haven't met too many religious folks. I know plenty of religious people who have gotten secular educations and still practice religion.

[jon1jt]

And this is all you could come up with in light of what I just posted??...that if a religious fanatic goes on a mass shooting spree they should be punished accordingly? Wow. :lol:

Our biggest difference is that you think bible banning should not be permitted even though it inspires some to kill and I believe the bible is inextricably connected to the violence. You're a logical man, right, Mr darkshadow man? Well, if the bible has the capacity to inspire one follower to kill, then logically it follows it has the capacity to inspire all followers to kill. And what we know is that biblical interpretation has led to terror and violence against innocents by religious people, and yet you argue that we must provide some sort of full immunity to the text that inspires the violence because the follower and not The Book is murderous. You try to separate fanaticism from religion but religion cannot be without fanaticism.

Westers Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines "fanatic" as a person inspired by a deity, frenzied; marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion.

In light of this definition, it isn't surprising that in the Old Testament blasphemy is a crime punishable by death.

In America, no constitutional right is above government regulation---not free speech, not religion, not gun ownership. The reason for this is the 14th Amendment that permits the state to regulate certain constitutionally-protected behaviors that pose a public harm.

There are very strict standards American courts must follow to determine whether a law denying such freedom is justifiable. The US has outlawed many civil liberties, from yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater to the performing of certain...ahem...acts between consenting gay couples in the privacy of their own homes (did you know such laws are still on the books in many states?) And as you know there are rules for seditious libel and in America a journalist can sometimes be imprisoned for failing to disclose information of private conversations.

Public libraries actively keep books like the Satanic Verses off its shelves for the reason that they inspire violence and hate. This is a form of censorship. Yet bibles, which are written by people and not gods, which have caused hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of violent deaths against each other and innocents, is interpreted into every language and has religious leaders passing on the word on cable television.

I'm not surprised that you remained silent on the point that religion is a cult. Cults take on a life of their own and have the capacity to do horrible things. To separate individual behavior from cult life is like separating a fetus from its womb.

Religion, like a drug dealer, tells its followers to try some of this and some of that and they'll feel a whole lot better. Last I checked drugs were outlawed and the dealer goes to jail.

Posterity will one day look back on our civilization and wonder what was going on in our heads, how could we have been so ignorant. it was all so obvious. They'll also acknowledge that not everybody was so ignorant, at least I hope so.

I'm outta here.

[Drkshadow03]

And this is all you could come up with in light of what I just posted??...that if a religious fanatic goes on a mass shooting spree they should be punished accordingly? Wow. :lol:

Yes, if you were making better points I would respond to what you said. However, your throw-away Kurds comment is a great example of why I didn't bother. Yes, because the Kurds only have one religion among them . . . :lol:

They're an ethnic group by any definition of the term.

What I choose to do was instead identify what was worth responding to, the meat-and-potatoes of your post, so to speak. I have a life, you know.


Our biggest difference is that you think bible banning should not be permitted even though it inspires some to kill and I believe the bible is inextricably connected to the violence.

No, actually I don't think any book should be banned. That just happens to include the Bible.


You're a logical man, right, Mr darkshadow man? Well, if the bible has the capacity to inspire one follower to kill, then logically it follows it has the capacity to inspire all followers to kill. And what we know is that biblical interpretation has led to terror and violence against innocents by religious people, and yet you argue that we must provide some sort of full immunity to the text that inspires the violence because the follower and not The Book is murderous.

You're playing cheap rhetorical tricks here. If we are being historically accurate: "what we know is that biblical interpretation has led to terror and violence against innocent [religious people] by religious people" in most cases throughout history (insertion mine). I don't see that the primary victims should be further victimized by slow-witted atheists who want to take their religion away from them.

If you wish to criticize the text go right ahead, but don't be surprised when someone criticizes your criticisms and schools you intellectually because of the thousand and one fallacious arguments you'll undoubtably make.


You try to separate fanaticism from religion but religion cannot be without fanaticism.

Yes, yes. All ideas have their fanatics: Feminism, Platonism, Rationalism, Trekkies, you name it. It doesn't change the fact that most of these ideologies want to accomplish good things and the vast majority of those who espouse those ideas commit no harm any one.


In light of this definition, it isn't surprising that in the Old Testament blasphemy is a crime punishable by death.

In America, no constitutional right is above government regulation---not free speech, not religion, not gun ownership. The reason for this is the 14th Amendment that permits the state to regulate certain constitutionally-protected behaviors that pose a public harm.

There are very strict standards American courts must follow to determine whether a law denying such freedom is justifiable. The US has outlawed many civil liberties, from yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater to the performing of certain...ahem...acts between consenting gay couples in the privacy of their own homes (did you know such laws are still on the books in many states?) And as you know there are rules for seditious libel and in America a journalist can sometimes be imprisoned for failing to disclose information of private conversations.

You're again being intellectually disingenuous. When decisions have been made of this sort regarding religion, it has been to rule polygamy illegal or the right to smoke marijuana as part of a religious custom. There is a huge difference between modifying particular Civil Liberties covered under the Bill of Rights and the outright ignoring of the Bill of Rights altogether, which clearly protects freedom of religion. Regulation does not = complete restriction.


Public libraries actively keep books like the Satanic Verses off its shelves for the reason that they inspire violence and hate. This is a form of censorship. Yet bibles, which are written by people and not gods, which have caused hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of violent deaths against each other and innocents, is interpreted into every language and has religious leaders passing on the word on cable television.

Do you have any evidence of your claim?

I highly doubt most librarians keep the Satanic Verses off their shelves for the reasons you state; most of the librarians I know are too brain-washed by the ALA in their never-ending quest to allow censorship, real or fake, to dictate their library collections.

I just checked the Rhode Island Public libraries through CLAAN (http://catalog.oslri.net/): at least 10 public libraries in Rhode Island own Satanic Verses. Burden of proof is on you.


I'm not surprised that you remained silent on the point that religion is a cult. Cults take on a life of their own and have the capacity to do horrible things. To separate individual behavior from cult life is like separating a fetus from its womb.

Because it was a complete non-point. Simply calling a religion a cult doesn't make it so. Likewise, it presumes that cults are automatically bad. What you're really doing is attempting to connect the emotional resonance of one word to the other. There is nothing really to respond to.

Even your loaded metaphor at the end here is rather silly. Fetuses eventually are separated from the womb; they become babies who eventually grow into adults. There are plenty of individuals to be found in religious groups; the fact that you seem to imply otherwise suggests to me that you haven't talked to too many religious folks, most of whom aren't very different from you, other than they believe in G-d, and if our conversation thus far is any indication, are probably a lot smarter as well.


Religion, like a drug dealer, tells its followers to try some of this and some of that and they'll feel a whole lot better. Last I checked drugs were outlawed and the dealer goes to jail.

This is yet another fallacious argument: Guilt by association.

You turned to irrelevant qualities that both things supposedly share, and hint that since drugs are outlawed, we should outlaw religion. Of course, my parents tell me I should try some of this and some of that and I'll feel a whole lot better; they're usually talking about broccolli when that happens. I don't see you demanding the outlaw of vegetables. These are basically superficial qualities that you're comparing to make a manipulative emotional point. I could use those irrelevant qualities for a thousand other things, which you'd never think to outlaw. This shows exactly why your argument is fallacious. Try again!


Posterity will one day look back on our civilization and wonder what was going on in our heads, how could we have been so ignorant. it was all so obvious. They'll also acknowledge that not everybody was so ignorant, at least I hope so.

Yes, but I doubt you'll be one of those they acknowledge as intelligent. Otherwise, the future is really screwed.

[jon1jt]

You remind me of one of those guys who carry around a pocket notebook that contains all the defective argument terms that you learned in Intro To Logic so that when somebody argues with you you can pull it out but offer little substance in return. :rolleyes:



They're an ethnic group by any definition of the term.

I'll say it again, I don't care whether they're referred to as an ethnic group or religious group because my example was used to point out that the violent conflict between the Kurds and Shiites has a religious basis to support my larger point that religion causes terror and violence between many people.


No, actually I don't think any book should be banned. That just happens to include the Bible.

I meant to say The Turner Diaries has been banned from American public libraries. The Turner Diaries needs no introducion. The FBI called it "The bible of the racist right." The Satanic Verses has been banned in India and Bangledesh. And there are some other countries that banned it as well that I can't recall right now. Of course America would never ever ban The Satanic Verses, it was written by Salmon Rushdie AND it's anti-Islamic. Reminds me how our beloved George W. refused to speak with democratically elected Yasser Arafat. Anyway, as far as the Turner Diaries, it is widely referred to as "cult novel." Now if the Old or New Testament is called a cult book, followers are up in arms and immediately dissociate themselves from it, like you just did. Not so hard to see what's going on there, eh?


I'll play your little game for a moment only because you attended Yeshiva school and also you're winning the game called Boring Me.

My analogy between religion and drugs goes like this:

Religion gets followers high; drugs get addicts high.
Religion causes people to kill; drugs cause people to kill.

And just because you automatically believe drugs are bad doesn't mean everybody feels the way you do or else we'd be clones now wouldn't we.

So take your suggestion that I used it as an "emotional appeal" and stick it next to your menorah. :sick:

[Whifflingpin]

Since this thread has degenerated into mutual personal abuse, perhaps it should be closed

[jon1jt]

Since this thread has degenerated into mutual personal abuse, perhaps it should be closed

It's ironic that you're considering closing a thread having to do with censorship. :lol: Anyway, our discussion is carrying along fine, Whiff, there's a great deal more being said in this exchange if you pay attention, and I'm not bothered at all by any "personal abuse." And from what I gathered, DarkShadow03 is very much against censorship. So no need to pull the switch on our dialogue.

[Logos]

Let's please get back to the subject of this thread: banned books.

Do not discuss each other; any more posts containing off-topic and or negative personal remarks directed at another member will be removed in entirety.

--

[kelby_lake]

People ban things mostly because they can't understand them or they are too close to the truth.

[semi-fly]

It seems more like they (those who wish to ban X book(s)) are in many ways unable or unwilling to put the book(s) into a specific context. The most important being the time in which the book was originally written. When things were very different from the present time(s).

I would like to think that even a simple minded person can realize such a basic thing as context. Though after reading many of the banned book lists it seems that just isn't the case.

I can understand a willing parent who actively encourages their children to broaden their perspective as to life around them, but to have those same parents restrict a child's imagination (via literature) because they themselves are incapable of understanding that which excites the children is simply barbaric and unjust.

[Eiseabhal]

Should the work of Holocaust deniers be "banned"? What about "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"? There are certainly books I have chucked in the bin after reading them.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Chucking them in the trash is different than banning them.

[kelby_lake]

Isn't it some sort of crime to deny the Holocaust though?

[Eiseabhal]

Well in some European countries it is. But there is a well known historian who has tried, for personal or political reasons - it is really hard to say which is more important to him - to revise the perception of The Holocaust. He has been vilified and threatened with legal repercussions. I only mention this to state that the banning of books is not simply a question of yes/ no. societies have laws . Different societies have different laws. Communities have standards. Different communities have different standards. Schools are a form of community within a larger community to which they must be connected. As an individual I would be angry with a school that used a depraved text in my twelve-year-old grandson's class. I noticed someone above referring to a book being removed from a school because it used the "n" word. Presumably the school had complaints. It seems reasonable for the school to take that on board. Why would a school alienate its customers , its parents?

[HCabret]

I
Well in some European countries it is. But there is a well known historian who has tried, for personal or political reasons - it is really hard to say which is more important to him - to revise the perception of The Holocaust. He has been vilified and threatened with legal repercussions. I only mention this to state that the banning of books is not simply a question of yes/ no. societies have laws . Different societies have different laws. Communities have standards. Different communities have different standards. Schools are a form of community within a larger community to which they must be connected. As an individual I would be angry with a school that used a depraved text in my twelve-year-old grandson's class. I noticed someone above referring to a book being removed from a school because it used the "n" word. Presumably the school had complaints. It seems reasonable for the school to take that on board. Why would a school alienate its customers , its parents?
Schools aren't businesses. Schools exist to benefit students, not parents. Do you support the destruction of books?

[Whifflingpin]

"As an individual I would be angry with a school that used a depraved text in my twelve-year-old grandson's class."
I remember chuckling when my 11 or 12 year old daughter came home with a note saying that they were intending to study Chaucer's "Miller's Tale" in class, and asking if parents had any objection. I thought that very few parents of my age would have been allowed to know even, in their school years, that Chaucer had written such a tale of lust, adultery and the smiting of arses with red-hot irons.
(I also thought that if you wanted to engage a 12yo's interest in poetry, reading the "Miller's Tale" was probably the way to do it.)

[HCabret]

"As an individual I would be angry with a school that used a depraved text in my twelve-year-old grandson's class."
I remember chuckling when my 11 or 12 year old daughter came home with a note saying that they were intending to study Chaucer's "Miller's Tale" in class, and asking if parents had any objection. I thought that very few parents of my age would have been allowed to know even, in their school years, that Chaucer had written such a tale of lust, adultery and the smiting of arses with red-hot irons.
(I also thought that if you wanted to engage a 12yo's interest in poetry, reading the "Miller's Tale" was probably the way to do it.)This made my day.

[Eiseabhal]

The burning of books? I'm not a bookalorator? If that's what you mean though f knows what you mean. If I was freezing I would definitely burn books to keep warm. Schools are part pf a community not something imposed on a community by a bunch of imperialist ****heads.