Shall the Bible Be Banned?

[WolfLarsen]

Should the Bible be Banned?

I personally am against banning any book, including the bible. And I’m sure many will point out, that the bible has much literary significance. In addition, it is important to defend freedom of religion, and that is another reason why the bible should not be banned.

However, many books have been banned. In addition, many an author has felt the chilling effects of censorship to this very day. Writers are regularly banned from literary posting boards for writing things far less extreme than what you might find in the old testament. In the old testament there is underage sex, underage marriage, and a great deal of incest.

Now, obscenity laws talk about “community standards” - that is, if the larger community finds something unacceptable then it can be banned or censored. Those laws are on the books, and have been used against pornographers, as well as many a work of literature. It is important to understand that the same laws that are used against pornography are used against literature.

If society were to be consistent in its actions then the bible would be banned just like many a work of literature and pornography. I have read the bible from the first page to the last, and if you were to write about some of the themes found in the old testament you would be banned from just about every single literary website in existence – including the erotic literary websites. In addition, you might be charged as a “child pornographer” and have to register as a “sex offender” for the rest of your life, all for writing about the same kinds of themes found in the old testament.

So what should we do? Should the bible be banned? Or, should we just stop being hypocrites and stop practicing censorship of books and writers? I favor the latter. But it would be interesting if, to prove a point, an obscenity case were launched against the bible. I’m not saying that I favor such an action, but it would be interesting.

I am not trying to make fun of anyone’s religion. I am making a point about censorship, and the hypocritical manner in which it is carried out.

[Melanie]

If you ban the Old Testament for "underage sex, underage marriage, and…incest", then you'd have to ban the News too. Unlike pornography and fiction (like Shades of Gray banned in Florida), the Old Testament wasn't written for our entertainment…it's more of an historical account and a lesson book on the results of man's sin.

[HCabret]

If you ban the Old Testament for "underage sex, underage marriage, and…incest", then you'd have to ban the News too. Unlike pornography and fiction (like Shades of Gray banned in Florida), the Old Testament wasn't written for our entertainment…it's more of an historical account and a lesson book on the results of man's sin.
I personally find the bible to be highly enertaining. Good plot, good characters. God is the greatest writer of them all.

[mona amon]

The Bible has already been banned actually, many times and in many places. I forget where, but it features prominently on almost every Banned Book list with the likes of Fanny Hill, Rights of Man, The Canterbury Tales, Lolita and Alice in Wonderland. Books get banned for all kinds of arbitrary reasons.

[Jack of Hearts]

Wrong, Volfie.

If you actually wanted to talk about censorship, you would've done just that. What you wanted to do was throw around incendiary discourse. Kind of like tabloids. "Should the bible be banned?" "John Travolta says he prefers men!" Same difference. This thread and the intent behind it completely detracts from this place.

But lowering any standard isn't against forum policy; not in this instance, and not in any other. For further reference, visit the now defunct poetry/short story section-- truly the house that Wolf built.





J

[millwallbill]

Judges 19 vs 22-30 gives a fairly vivid depiction of gang rape that would, in times past, have got any other book banned.

[Frédéric Moreau]

I think that it is a matter of shape, though I personally don't believe in censorship. As somebody said before me, you would have to ban the news either, take a look at the 'Daily Mail'.

[cacian]

If you ban the Old Testament for "underage sex, underage marriage, and…incest", then you'd have to ban the News too. Unlike pornography and fiction (like Shades of Gray banned in Florida), the Old Testament wasn't written for our entertainment…it's more of an historical account and a lesson book on the results of man's sin.
this is assuming one is going to sin.
if something is laid out black and white on how one is going to sin which is what the bible sets out to do then one is almost expected to.
upon reading what a sin is means one is almost about to sin because he or she has just learned it from the bible.
the other side of the coin is not everyone sins and so is the bible relevant to them?
is to me a most pressing question.

[WolfLarsen]

Somebody mentioned the short story section. I think they’re talking about a post entitled: “smash the literary world into pieces with a wrecking ball!” I don’t recall putting that thread in the short story section, but it was over eight years ago, so who knows. I was new to this site then, so I may have made a mistake. If that is so, my apologies.

However, regarding this particular thread, I just want people to think. Censorship is a big issue. And really, if you were to write about two daughters getting their father drunk and having sex with them you would be banned from almost any posting board, including the erotic literature posting boards. And there is a scene as I just described in the bible where two daughters get their father drunk and have sex with him. Does this kind of thing make you uncomfortable? It certainly makes me uncomfortable!

While I am less puritanical than many, I have some very strong feelings about incest. Does that give me the right to try and censor the bible? So if I don’t have the right to censor the bible, why is it acceptable to censor writing that is far less extreme than what is found in the bible?

In the bible are persons of younger ages marrying older men, often relatives. Here there is not only the question of incest, but also the question of adolescents having sexual relations.

When we are told as writers that we must censor ourselves, we are often told to do so because of the “children”. But are adolescents innocent children? If adolescents are innocent children, how come they’re always getting pregnant? I don’t wanna get into a big long blah blah blah about teenage pregnancy, I merely want to point out that they are hardly “innocent children” who need to be sheltered from naughty words.

In spite of the fact that all of the incest in the old testament makes me very uncomfortable, I do not believe it should be banned. But if we are not going to ban the bible, then how are we going to tolerate the censorship of literary works far less extreme?

Once again, I’m not trying to make fun of any religion, but is not the first amendment which guarantees freedom of religion also supposed to stop censorship?

[Frédéric Moreau]

Somebody mentioned the short story section. I think they’re talking about a post entitled: “smash the literary world into pieces with a wrecking ball!” I don’t recall putting that thread in the short story section, but it was over eight years ago, so who knows. I was new to this site then, so I may have made a mistake. If that is so, my apologies.

However, regarding this particular thread, I just want people to think. Censorship is a big issue. And really, if you were to write about two daughters getting their father drunk and having sex with them you would be banned from almost any posting board, including the erotic literature posting boards. And there is a scene as I just described in the bible where two daughters get their father drunk and have sex with him. Does this kind of thing make you uncomfortable? It certainly makes me uncomfortable!

While I am less puritanical than many, I have some very strong feelings about incest. Does that give me the right to try and censor the bible? So if I don’t have the right to censor the bible, why is it acceptable to censor writing that is far less extreme than what is found in the bible?

In the bible are persons of younger ages marrying older men, often relatives. Here there is not only the question of incest, but also the question of adolescents having sexual relations.

When we are told as writers that we must censor ourselves, we are often told to do so because of the “children”. But are adolescents innocent children? If adolescents are innocent children, how come they’re always getting pregnant? I don’t wanna get into a big long blah blah blah about teenage pregnancy, I merely want to point out that they are hardly “innocent children” who need to be sheltered from naughty words.

In spite of the fact that all of the incest in the old testament makes me very uncomfortable, I do not believe it should be banned. But if we are not going to ban the bible, then how are we going to tolerate the censorship of literary works far less extreme?

Once again, I’m not trying to make fun of any religion, but is not the first amendment which guarantees freedom of religion also supposed to stop censorship?

That's interesting. But I think that it's more a matter of shape than of content; I mean, whether the perversity is approved in the text or not (and I repeat that I don't believe in censorship). But I agree with you, there are a couple of classical works full of rough content, like 'Satyricon'. I also remember that Ovid suggested raping women in 'Art of love' (provided that all ways of wooing failed).

[Frédéric Moreau]

That's interesting. But I think that it's more a matter of shape than of content; I mean, whether the perversity is approved in the text or not (and I repeat that I don't believe in censorship). But I agree with you, there are a couple of classical works full of rough content, like 'Satyricon'. I also remember that Ovid suggested raping women in 'Art of love' (provided that all ways of wooing failed).

I was referring to this:

"Though she might not give, take what isn’t given.

Perhaps she’ll struggle, and then say ‘you’re wicked’:

struggling she still wants, herself, to be conquered.

Only, take care her lips aren’t bruised by snatching,

and that she can’t complain that you were harsh.

Who takes a kiss, and doesn’t take the rest,

deserves to lose all that were granted too.

How much short of your wish are you after that kiss?

Ah me, that was boorishness stopped you not modesty.

Though you call it force: it’s force that pleases girls: what delights

is often to have given what they wanted, against their will.

She who is taken in love’s sudden onslaught

is pleased, and finds wickedness is a tribute.

And she who might have been forced, and escapes unscathed,

will be saddened, though her face pretends delight.

Phoebe was taken by force: force was offered her sister:

and both, when raped, were pleased with those who raped them."

Ovid, 'Ars amatoria'.

[Frédéric Moreau]

From Petronious 'Satyricon' comes this, which is particularly appaling, but, sadly, wasn't very much weird formerly:

"Eumolpus, who was so careful a soul he was ready to take even me at my age for a minion, was not long in inviting the girl to sacrifice to the rearward Venus. But then he had informed everybody he was gouty and crippled in the loins, and if he failed to keep up the pretense, he ran considerable risk of spoiling the whole play. So, to maintain the imposture intact, he begged the girl to take a seat on that kindly good nature her mother had appealed to, ordering Corax at the same time to slip under the bed he lay on himself, and resting his hands on the floor, to hoist him up and down with his back. The servant obeyed, and gently seconded the child's artful movements with a corresponding, rhythmical seesaw. Then when the crisis was coming, Eumolpus shouted out loud and clear to Corax to work faster. Thus the old fellow, suspended between his servant and his mistress, enjoyed himself as if in a swing. This exercise he repeated more than once, to the accompaniment of peals of laughter, in which he himself joined. Nor was I idle; but fearing my hand might get out of practise from disuse, I assailed the brother, where he stood admiring his sister's gymnastics through the keyhole, to see if he were amenable to outrage. He made no bones about accepting my caresses; but once more, alas! I found the god unpropitious to my efforts."

[WolfLarsen]

The1960s, the Sexual Revolution, Censorship, & Creativity
Some thoughts by wolf Larsen

My brothers were a decade older than me, and they caught the tail end of the sexual revolution. I was around mostly people older than me, and although I was not much interested in sex before I obtained puberty, I remember that sexual attitudes back then were far less puritanical than they are today. And I remember when the new Puritanism began: in the 1980s.

The new Puritanism that began in the 1980s is still with us today. This new Puritanism which we are living under today is anything but natural. People who did not experience the sexual revolution may think that the current puritanical state of affairs regarding literature and sexuality is natural, but they are mistaken.

The social struggles of the 1950s & 1960s brought new attitudes that challenged sexual Puritanism and censorship. But in the 1980s the struggle to put the genie back into the bottle began. Once again, the effort to promote censorship was launched, in an attack which began on pornography, but this attack later affected literature as well. Post literature on the Internet with just a hint of sexuality and you may very well find yourself banned, or at least warned, depending on the literary posting board.

It seems like posting pornography is OK on the Internet. But god forbid that your writing should just treat sexuality as something natural. In which case, your writing may not be erotic enough for an erotic posting board, but it may be too erotic for all the other posting boards. You made find the world of literary magazines to be quite similar. Why can’t we just accept sexuality in literature as something natural?

I remember when feminists were not uptight about sexuality. Feminists use to burn their bras. But, somewhere in the 1980s, the feminists joined the puritanical bandwagon and began attacking pornography. Political correctness was born. At the same time the religious right began an attack on everything they felt was “immoral”. The environment became hostile to the mixture of creativity and sexuality, as if these two things could be separated, considering that sexuality is a natural part of our lives, or should be.

Political correctness has had, in my opinion, a very detrimental effect upon freedom of speech and freedom of expression for writers and artists. When people claiming to have progressive values are attacking the same passages in your book that the born-again Christians are attacking then you realize something ominous is happening. When people claiming to have progressive values are attacking the same paintings that the born-again Christians are attacking then you know you’re in the midst of a very reactionary environment that is hostile to literary and artistic creativity.

The feminist attack on pornography, and political correctness in general, made it acceptable for people with so-called progressive values to censor writers & artists. What began as a witch hunt against pornography, became a witch hunt against writers. Is that so surprising?

Ever notice how so many movies and books written in the 1960s are so creative? The atmosphere was more conducive to creativity, there was less a feeling of censorship, it fell like one could be more open.

Today, writers are not free to express themselves the way they were before back in the 1960s and seventies. I’m not saying the 1960s and 1970s was perfect, but the atmosphere felt a lot freer than it does today.

[HCabret]

The1960s, the Sexual Revolution, Censorship, & Creativity
Some thoughts by wolf Larsen

My brothers were a decade older than me, and they caught the tail end of the sexual revolution. I was around mostly people older than me, and although I was not much interested in sex before I obtained puberty, I remember that sexual attitudes back then were far less puritanical than they are today. And I remember when the new Puritanism began: in the 1980s.

The new Puritanism that began in the 1980s is still with us today. This new Puritanism which we are living under today is anything but natural. People who did not experience the sexual revolution may think that the current puritanical state of affairs regarding literature and sexuality is natural, but they are mistaken.

The social struggles of the 1950s & 1960s brought new attitudes that challenged sexual Puritanism and censorship. But in the 1980s the struggle to put the genie back into the bottle began. Once again, the effort to promote censorship was launched, in an attack which began on pornography, but this attack later affected literature as well. Post literature on the Internet with just a hint of sexuality and you may very well find yourself banned, or at least warned, depending on the literary posting board.

It seems like posting pornography is OK on the Internet. But god forbid that your writing should just treat sexuality as something natural. In which case, your writing may not be erotic enough for an erotic posting board, but it may be too erotic for all the other posting boards. You made find the world of literary magazines to be quite similar. Why can’t we just accept sexuality in literature as something natural?

I remember when feminists were not uptight about sexuality. Feminists use to burn their bras. But, somewhere in the 1980s, the feminists joined the puritanical bandwagon and began attacking pornography. Political correctness was born. At the same time the religious right began an attack on everything they felt was “immoral”. The environment became hostile to the mixture of creativity and sexuality, as if these two things could be separated, considering that sexuality is a natural part of our lives, or should be.

Political correctness has had, in my opinion, a very detrimental effect upon freedom of speech and freedom of expression for writers and artists. When people claiming to have progressive values are attacking the same passages in your book that the born-again Christians are attacking then you realize something ominous is happening. When people claiming to have progressive values are attacking the same paintings that the born-again Christians are attacking then you know you’re in the midst of a very reactionary environment that is hostile to literary and artistic creativity.

The feminist attack on pornography, and political correctness in general, made it acceptable for people with so-called progressive values to censor writers & artists. What began as a witch hunt against pornography, became a witch hunt against writers. Is that so surprising?

Ever notice how so many movies and books written in the 1960s are so creative? The atmosphere was more conducive to creativity, there was less a feeling of censorship, it fell like one could be more open.

Today, writers are not free to express themselves the way they were before back in the 1960s and seventies. I’m not saying the 1960s and 1970s was perfect, but the atmosphere felt a lot freer than it does today.
So you just want women to be more willing to strip for you? I suggest you either pull down your own pants or stop telling other people what they should do or not do. On the plus side: time travel is theoretically possible!

[WolfLarsen]

So you just want women to be more willing to strip for you? I suggest you either pull down your own pants or stop telling other people what they should do or not do. On the plus side: time travel is theoretically possible!

That's funny, I think it says something else.

[YesNo]

My brothers were a decade older than me, and they caught the tail end of the sexual revolution. I was around mostly people older than me, and although I was not much interested in sex before I obtained puberty, I remember that sexual attitudes back then were far less puritanical than they are today. And I remember when the new Puritanism began: in the 1980s.

I suspect sex is more readily available today than it was back then, at least in the US. What was going on at that time was the Vietnam War that was disrupting stability. People were also becoming more mobile.



It seems like posting pornography is OK on the Internet. But god forbid that your writing should just treat sexuality as something natural. In which case, your writing may not be erotic enough for an erotic posting board, but it may be too erotic for all the other posting boards. You made find the world of literary magazines to be quite similar. Why can’t we just accept sexuality in literature as something natural?

There must be internet boards in which sexually explicit writing can be posted. If not you should be able to create one. The problem is getting readers.



I remember when feminists were not uptight about sexuality. Feminists use to burn their bras. But, somewhere in the 1980s, the feminists joined the puritanical bandwagon and began attacking pornography. Political correctness was born. At the same time the religious right began an attack on everything they felt was “immoral”. The environment became hostile to the mixture of creativity and sexuality, as if these two things could be separated, considering that sexuality is a natural part of our lives, or should be.

The feminist attack on pornography puzzled me as well, but I haven't read much about it. People like to define themselves based on what they think they are not. It generates an us/them righteousness.



Political correctness has had, in my opinion, a very detrimental effect upon freedom of speech and freedom of expression for writers and artists. When people claiming to have progressive values are attacking the same passages in your book that the born-again Christians are attacking then you realize something ominous is happening. When people claiming to have progressive values are attacking the same paintings that the born-again Christians are attacking then you know you’re in the midst of a very reactionary environment that is hostile to literary and artistic creativity.

The important word in the phrase, "people claiming to have progressive values" is "claiming".

The dichotomy between them and "born-again Christians" is also key. For example, I don't see any "born-again Christians" around me. There are people whom I might label "pseudo-progressive", but they seem more like teenagers or 20-somethings who need to grow up. Having children in that age group makes me also look at them as "children". I know they are adults, but I see children.



The feminist attack on pornography, and political correctness in general, made it acceptable for people with so-called progressive values to censor writers & artists. What began as a witch hunt against pornography, became a witch hunt against writers. Is that so surprising?

Ever notice how so many movies and books written in the 1960s are so creative? The atmosphere was more conducive to creativity, there was less a feeling of censorship, it fell like one could be more open.

What movies are you talking about? Generally, I don't want to watch a movie from the 60s. Maybe I missed the good ones.



Today, writers are not free to express themselves the way they were before back in the 1960s and seventies. I’m not saying the 1960s and 1970s was perfect, but the atmosphere felt a lot freer than it does today.

The problem is getting readers--with money to spend--to purchase whatever you have packaged. It is the same thing today as it was in the 60s. That means the packaging has to be done with marketing involved. Sometimes that involves treating sex more subtly to get a wider audience. It is the same thing with those deep writers whining about this or how their souls hurt about that. A reader can handle only so much.

[WolfLarsen]

Whining? My tummy aches.

As far as freedom of speech goes, self-censorship is another problem. You anticipate the censorship, and you adjust to it. You begin censoring yourself.

I was watching a DVD of the history of comedy in the United States. Comedians have had to constantly fight censorship. What was interesting, during periods of intense censorship of comedy there was also intense censorship of literature.

[ennison]

Should it be banned. There are countries where it is.