Banned Books

[Laurelyn]

Originally posted by Alethes


I'm in favor of banning some books, namely books that glorify racism, violence, and sexual themes. The first one is morally wrong; the last one is morally wrong in some cases, but private in all cases, and IMO just isn't something that should be discussed in books read by children, or even teenagers. While some violence is necessary, glorifying it is morally wrong. Some books, like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, shouldn't be banned -- some say it is racist, but I think that's an exaggeration.
.

Would you have them banned entirely, or just put on a shelf that, say, only folks over 18 or under 18 w/ a signed slip from their parents could check out, or altogether removed from the library, no, sorry, we don't have that book?
See, I think you're right that books that glorify racism, and violence are pretty much morraly wrong, and sexually explicit books are not a good pick for kids (Actually, the truth is, I don't see why anyone, adults or kids, would want to read a book like that, but that's just my opinion).

[jerseydevil]

I don't agree with banning of books at all. First look at Harry Potter - religious groups complain to schools about them teaching witchcraft. People start forcing their beliefs on others and that's where censorship goes wrong. Huck Finn is banned in many schools, so is Wizard of Oz, or Lord of the Flies. Most books aren't banned because of sexual content they are banned for religious reasons and political views.

By banning books or making things taboo - people become more interested in them. Look at any obscure film that has ever been picketted by a religious group - it always has a ton of people go see it and then after everything dies down - people can't even remember the name of it.

I don't want people dictating to me what I can read or see - as long as it is not hurting other people. It's the parents job to raise their children - not the government or companies.

What bothers me most - is that America was the land of freedom - we pride ourselves on it - yet look at how much banning is done by local communities, schools and libraries. A town in New Mexico had a book burning in the streets for Harry Potter - all I kept thinking about was the Salem Witch Trials and the Holocuast. Are people so insecure with themselves and their beliefs that the only way for them to bring up their children the way they believe is to burn books that contain ideas that differ from theirs???!!!!

[Laurelyn]

The number one reason for banning kids' books is that the book "attacks autority figures" meaning that it makes the teachers and parents the bad guys. Is that ridiculous or what?

[Starr Polish]

Laurelyn, you amaze me at how darn smart you are.

[Arathorn]

yeah, Laurelyn, I could've sworn you were at least as young as Starr Polish. You're in fact much younger

[FrodoFriend]

I'm still amazed the Harry Potter banning thing. Paranoia to the extreme!! Jeez!!

Alethes - Books that glorify racism, violence, etc. can give valuable insight to "bad" people who are into that kind of thing. So I don't think they should be banned; it would probably be a good idea to teach people about stuff like that. Hopefully those kinds of books would never reach the New York Times bestsellers list!!

The problem is just that some people are more impressionable than others. There's really no way to generalize.

[mirrille]

Yeah. It's a difficult question. I think that some of this really bad stuff, like leaflets that glorify gay-bashing, racism, or any of this other ignorant, intolerant thing should be kept around as educational material. Meaning that it teaches us something about our history and we learn the consequences and dangers of this kind of thinking. But some people are just not mature or smart enough to see it for what it is. They actually believe this trash. It boggles my mind, but that's the way it is. This seems to be the problem: a relatively small but incredibly gullible segment of the population allowing themselves to be manipulated this way. The counter to that would be to educate them otherwise, but that is itself difficult.

Harry Potter banning is funny, in a sad sort of way. It's that kind of Christian Right that gives all other Christians a bad name. I feel bad for them. They are obviously so insecure in their faith that they think something so harmless could turn their kids away from it. Laughable!

[Laurelyn]

Thank you, Arathorn and Starr Polish. *grins* I feel all special now . . .

You're right, Mirrille, that that kind of material could be educational in a way. I'd quote your post but I don't know how to quote w/o pressing the tiny little quote button.

And as for Harry Potter: I once saw a cartoon of a kid, going up to the library, only the librarian is nailing up a sign that says "No Harry Potter books available here." The kid shrugs, and walks off, saying, "Oh well. Now I'll just go play my violent video games, and surf X-rated websites."

It was really funny because of the amount of truth it holds. So many kids don't read a lot, and then when they find a book to read that they will read and they like, their parents/church members or whatever try to ban it. It's not really evil stuff, just fantasy. Of course they must think it's evil to react this way to it, but I figure that think whatever they may, when it comes down to a book vs video games and TV and the web, and all the other trash that's out there nowadays, the book is the lesser of the two evils.

Of course, for the kids who read other things than Harry Potter, maybe they won't go back to video games and stuff, but then again, the same folk who banned Harry Potter could come and ban the kid's other reading material. Then he's got nothing to read, and so he goes and watches TV or whatever. And here we are again; he watches all these sitcoms and other baloney, and probably gets even crazier ideas put into his head than when he read the books.

But that whole thing shows how stupid the banning of books can be. Of course for some of the books that are challenged and banned for reasons other than religion or whatever, like books that glorify things that shouldn't be glorified, then the banners do have a point. That kind of stuff is not good for some people to read, and that kind of stuff is also stronger than the kids' books. The subjects are harsher, and for very gullible people, they could possibly convince people that what the book is saying is right, or a good idea. *Look up, there's a plane writing gullible in the sky!*
That wouldn't be good.

[Arathorn]

hmmm...this discussion reminds me of an old 80's teen flick starring Kevin Bacon and Sarah Jessica Parker called Footloose. They did burn some books there but what was really banned was dancing (weird).

[Laurelyn]

Dancing got banned? Oooh, really weird . . . oh well, it's a movie. Movies are on average strange. And most teen movies . . . *shudders*

[Twilight]

Having dancing banned is more common then you think. I go to a college where dancing is banned. They even make us sign a statement saying that we won't dance. It seems like a rather pointless thing to ban.

[Arathorn]

very curious yet ridiculous, IMO. how do they know if one is dancing? is foot tapping, head wagging and finger snapping allowed?

[Starr Polish]

Oliver Cromwell banned dancing (and just about anything fun, darn Puritan) when he took over England in the 1600's...just learned that two days ago!

Laurelyn, I agree. HP is just fantasy, like LOTR. I know that LOTR is supposed to be 'parallel' to the Bible because of Tolkien's beliefs, and I don't doubt it, but it's still fantasy, just like HP, and it is more widely accepted among Christians. Albeit, I think LOTR is a better book overall.

Agrr...

[mirrille]

I suspect HP would not be banned if it were not so popular. It's not as if the children's market isn't flooded with fantasy already. It's just that no one has been so successful for a long time doing it, so of course there must be some sort of evil witchcraft involved .

Dancing banned? That's....terrible...unthinkable...
Dancing is so important!

[Arathorn]

'went to some hp sites and there have been reactions by wicca practitioners; although these are neutral.

They say that everything depicted in HP is very different from the religion they practice; that their's is a worship of nature (neither God nor the Devil). They also say that the film's a good laugh, though.

Going back to that old film (1984, me thinks), Kevin Bacon's character tried to argue why dance is important by reading a passage from Ecclesiastes( ... A time to mourn, and a time to dance..). He got the reverend to side with him and allow the teenagers to go to a dance just outside town with supervision. It ended with what looked like a Kenny Loggins video and the film ended. Then the soundtrack made more money than the film. Go figure...

[mirrille]

Well, HP is not supposed to be reflective of Wiccan practices any more than a fortune cookie is reflective of Asian cuisine, so it doesn't surprise me that it looks nothing like the religion of Wiccanism. Stories about old wizards with long beards, witches with pointy hats and crystal balls, magical unicorns, and hocus-pocus kind of stuff is just a mythology of popular culture. If it happened to go back to distorted ideas about Wiccans in ancient times, it hardly matters now, because when we think of witches, it's the witch on a broom we will see, because that is part of our culture now. It has diverged since the time it had any association with the Wiccans. Besides, I don't think the Wiccans can claim full credit for the whole "magic" thing. That would be...acting self-important. Lots of cultures have "magical" stories and creatures, some of which are drawn upon in HP. But it is a "western" story in a "western" setting, so it's bound to draw mostly on "western" influences, because that is what the readers are familiar with.

[Arathorn]

I must admit, though, that the muggle family depicted in HP looks to me to be a caricature of the stereotypical book-banning type.

[athelas]

I feel that it is actually very difficult to say whether a book should be banned and there is no specicfic way to define what is good and what is bad. What may seem, for example, racist to someone may not be to another person. A little violence/sexual stuff won't hurt, but books that overly glorify racism/violence/sex should be banned (eg. a book on why Jews should be exterminated....but i guess no one would actually write that...its sick) as they are morally wrong, do no good to the general public and would face worldwide opposition.

But I believe in the freedom of speech (most of the time), and parents calling for a book ban over some violence or sex are being rather unreasonable. After all, kids must learn that the world is not a totally "I love you, you love me", bed of roses kind of world. Whether they want to read it or not should be a choice of their own, depending on thetheir moral values/ethics.

Banning Harry Potter....now thats ridiculous. It would be like saying Snow White should be banned because there is an evil witch in it.

[mirrille]

Originally posted by athelas
a book on why Jews should be exterminated....but i guess no one would actually write that...its sick)

You'd be surprised at what kind of sick stuff people can get up to and that people actually believe it.

[galadriel88]

On HP being banned: I am a christian and I read it. I agree, it's just fantasy.

On dancing: I know that dancing is highly acceptedwith the general public and even many christians, but at my school (see the thread "Gerr! Stuped mom...") we don't have dances. Nearly all the christians in my town, including me & my fam, don't believe it's right for christians to participate in it and here's why: You have a guy. And a girl. When they dance, they get close....very close. All we're saying is that it can lead to, ahem, other things. And christians are supposed to avoid all evil, and we are supposed to save ourselves for marriage. So, put 2 and 2 together, and you get my philosophy: If you don't start it in the first place, it's a whole lot easier to stop.

Well, now that I've said my little bit......

P.S. Just to let ya'll know, you didn't offend me at all.