I think people have the rights do read what they want, if they don't like it, don't read it.
I agree with it.
I think that people should, like they do now, choose which books they want banned.
I hate banned books.
It's appalling.
I like the idea.
It's against the "First Ammendment."
I could careless... i hate books.
No comment.
I never thought of that????????.....
"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.
Last edited by Zee.; 01-30-2009 at 01:08 AM.
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.
"He was nauseous with regret when he saw her face again, and when, as of yore, he pleaded and begged at her knees for the joy of her being. She understood Neal; she stroked his hair; she knew he was mad."
---Jack Kerouac, On The Road: The Original Scroll
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.Originally Posted by jon1jt
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.
"He was nauseous with regret when he saw her face again, and when, as of yore, he pleaded and begged at her knees for the joy of her being. She understood Neal; she stroked his hair; she knew he was mad."
---Jack Kerouac, On The Road: The Original Scroll
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.
LET THERE BE LIGHT
"Love follows knowledge." – St. Catherine of Siena
My literature blog: http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/
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.
Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing, doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before. ~ Edgar Allan Poe
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.
Last edited by jon1jt; 01-30-2009 at 02:35 AM.
"He was nauseous with regret when he saw her face again, and when, as of yore, he pleaded and begged at her knees for the joy of her being. She understood Neal; she stroked his hair; she knew he was mad."
---Jack Kerouac, On The Road: The Original Scroll
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.
Last edited by JBI; 01-30-2009 at 02:52 AM.
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.
Last edited by jon1jt; 01-30-2009 at 03:50 AM.
"He was nauseous with regret when he saw her face again, and when, as of yore, he pleaded and begged at her knees for the joy of her being. She understood Neal; she stroked his hair; she knew he was mad."
---Jack Kerouac, On The Road: The Original Scroll
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.
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!
Last edited by bazarov; 01-30-2009 at 06:28 AM.
At thunder and tempest, At the world's coldheartedness,
During times of heavy loss And when you're sad
The greatest art on earth Is to seem uncomplicatedly gay.
To get things clear, they have to firstly be very unclear. But if you get them too quickly, you probably got them wrong.
If you need me urgent, send me a PM
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".
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.
One has to laugh before being happy, because otherwise one risks to die before having laughed.
"Je crains [...] que l'âme ne se vide à ces passe-temps vains, et que le fin du fin ne soit la fin des fins." (Edmond Rostand, Cyrano de Bergerac, Acte III, Scène VII)
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.
"Do you mind if I reel in this fish?" - Dale Harris
"For sale: baby shoes, never worn." - Ernest Hemingway
Blog
here, here (do they write it like that?)
One has to laugh before being happy, because otherwise one risks to die before having laughed.
"Je crains [...] que l'âme ne se vide à ces passe-temps vains, et que le fin du fin ne soit la fin des fins." (Edmond Rostand, Cyrano de Bergerac, Acte III, Scène VII)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
