Slashdot Mirror
Top Banned Books of 2003
michaelzhao writes "The ALA (American Library Association) recently published the new 100 most frequently banned books list of 2003.
Of the banned books, Harry Potter was in the number 7th place in the most frequently banned. Also included were 'Where's Waldo' and 'The Giver' along with 'Goosebumps' and 'How to Eat Fried Worms.' These books were banned from various public institutions. This means that they were banned from various public libraries and public schools around the nation. (private schools, libraries, and institutions of higher learning don't count) The ALA encourages the people of the United States to fight against the book bans and read a banned book today!"
Well, I don't know about banning them, but quite a few of the books on that list certainly qualify as total crap.
* Scary Stories
Um. WHY?! These books were some of the most popular books in school when I was in grade school. You were lucky if you could get a copy because they were ALWAYS checked out.
* I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings?
Maya Angelou is a crappy poet and a crappy writer. If she weren't over 200 years old and black, nobody would think twice about her. And who cares that she was a stripper or prostitute or whatever when she was younger. That doesn't make her poetry stink less. It's about time we stop torturing children by making them read her garbage. There are much better poets out there to read and study.
* Daddy's Roommate / Heather Has Two Mommies
Well, need I say anything? These obviously don't belong in a school library. Six year old kids don't need to be learning about homosexuality anymore than they need to be learning about heterosexuality. Leave this stuff for the later years - like when they can at least tie their own shoes.
* Bridge To Terabithia
Oh good god what a piece of shit. I had to read this in school in fifth grade. It was short, sappy, dull and retarded. It might be fitting for third grade, if it wasn't so boring - but not for anything above that.
* Sex
Well, duh.
* A Wrinkle In Time
What the fuck?! This was a great book for young people (around the age of 10 to 12). What in the fuck would it be banned for?!?!
* The New Joy of Gay Sex
Golly, why do you figure they might not want their children reading that? I would say that's not a book that was so much banned as it just wasn't purchased. I'm sure most places for children don't carry books on how to fist your girlfriend's pussy either. So what.
* How To Eat Fried Worms
What the hell?! Granted, it's a stupid book - but I dont' recall anything offensive or whatever in it.
* Where's Waldo?
Well, I understand this one. It's not even a book really. Banning this is like banning television from the school library. It's just not really an appropriate item.
Really, most of the books on that list suck. Some are great, but not many (Slaughter House for example). And many of them SHOULD be banned. I'd be pretty ticked if my kid brought home some of the books from that list from school. Others, though, make no sense at all. Really odd.
The title actual is "The 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990-20001".
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
May I ask why the hell Where's Waldo? was banned?
Is the objection to Harry Potter that it depicts magic? I don't get it. C.S. Lewis had magic in his books, and Christians love him. What is the difference?
I used to think my high school literature teacher was the coolest person in the world. (Oh, and she was HOT!) Obviously a previous bra-burning flower girl...
Then, the school board told her that she had to quit teaching A Brave New World -- and she did.
What a wimp. I lost all respect for her for not fighting it.
AC
The Anarchist's Cookbook doesn't even make the list... I mean, is all this stuff really that dangerous?
My little site.
...it was in particular Where's Waldo: Waldo Has 2 Daddies.
here.
Not a list, but has a good portion of the books and actually gives inciteful commentary.
Harry Potter - encourages children to take drugs, mainly pot
Wheres Waldo - Encourages Stalking
and as for "how to eat fried worms" this obviously encourages animal cruelty
why The House of Spirits by Isabel Allende? why To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee?
"Who hasn't slipped into the break room for a quick nibble on a love Newton before?" - Mr. Peterman.
I can understand the banning of American Psycho (excellent book by the way), but Sex by Madonna (and lots of sex related books)? In the Internet era... i mean, is this serious? Is this to "protect" children or something? America is weird sometimes...
Weirdest ban go to 'Of mice and men'... What's disturbing in this story? It was obligatory to read it in Highschool for us in Canada.... Does it means Canadians are deviant or something? Can I live an healthy, balanced life after this? I hope so!
Eureka Science News - automatically updated
Banned books are always good The giver was a good book why ban wheres waldo? Harry potter The choclate war.... all good books
Im not wrong....the rest of the world is.
The TOS of the domain administrator decides what is right. And they decided they didn't think it did.
No question after seeing the list and finding these.
5. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
56. James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
88. Where's Waldo? by Martin Hanford
96. How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
That list is disturbing. The ones I highlited here are some of what I read that really shouldn't be banned in my own opinion. Though I think no book should be banned, it's up to people to shepard their children and decide for themselves.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
30. "The Goats" by Brock Cole
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Here's a copy of the list for you unlucky fellers not able to get it: (it's in order but sin numbers because of formatting) Scary Stories (Series) by Alvin Schwartz Daddy's Roommate by Michael Willhoite I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck Harry Potter (Series) by J.K. Rowling Forever by Judy Blume Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson Alice (Series) by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman My Brother Sam is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger The Giver by Lois Lowry It's Perfectly Normal by Robie Harris Goosebumps (Series) by R.L. Stine A Day No Pigs Would Dieby Robert Newton Peck The Color Purple by Alice Walker Sex by Madonna Earth's Children (Series) by Jean M. Auel The Great Gilly Hopkins by Katherine Paterson A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle Go Ask Alice by Anonymous Fallen Angels by Walter Dean Myers In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak The Stupids (Series) by Harry Allard The Witches by Roald Dahl The New Joy of Gay Sex by Charles Silverstein Anastasia Krupnik (Series) by Lois Lowry The Goats by Brock Cole Kaffir Boy by Mark Mathabane Blubber by Judy Blume Killing Mr. Griffin by Lois Duncan Halloween ABC by Eve Merriam We All Fall Down by Robert Cormier Final Exit by Derek Humphry The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood Julie of the Wolves by Jean Craighead George The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison What's Happening to my Body? Book for Girls: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Daughters by Lynda Madaras To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee Beloved by Toni Morrison The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton The Pigman by Paul Zindel Bumps in the Night by Harry Allard Deenie by Judy Blume Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes Annie on my Mind by Nancy Garden The Boy Who Lost His Face by Louis Sachar Cross Your Fingers, Spit in Your Hat by Alvin Schwartz A Light in the Attic by Shel Silverstein Brave New World by Aldous Huxley Sleeping Beauty Trilogy by A.N. Roquelaure (Anne Rice) Asking About Sex and Growing Up by Joanna Cole Cujo by Stephen King James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl The Anarchist Cookbook by William Powell Boys and Sex by Wardell Pomeroy Ordinary People by Judith Guest American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis What's Happening to my Body? Book for Boys: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Sons by Lynda Madaras Are You There, God? It's Me, Margaret by Judy Blume Crazy Lady by Jane Conly Athletic Shorts by Chris Crutcher Fade by Robert Cormier Guess What? by Mem Fox The House of Spirits by Isabel Allende The Face on the Milk Carton by Caroline Cooney Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut Lord of the Flies by William Golding Native Son by Richard Wright Women on Top: How Real Life Has Changed Women's Fantasies by Nancy Friday Curses, Hexes and Spells by Daniel Cohen Jack by A.M. Homes Bless Me, Ultima by Rudolfo A. Anaya Where Did I Come From? by Peter Mayle Carrie by Stephen King Tiger Eyes by Judy Blume On My Honor by Marion Dane Bauer Arizona Kid by Ron Koertge Family Secrets by Norma Klein Mommy Laid An Egg by Babette Cole The Dead Zone by Stephen King The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison Always Running by Luis Rodriguez Private Parts by Howard Stern Where's Waldo? by Martin Hanford Summer of My German Soldier by Bette Greene Little Black Sambo by Helen Bannerman Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follett Running Loose by Chris Crutcher Sex Education by Jenny Davis The Drowning of Stephen Jones by Bette Greene Girls and Sex by Wardell Pomeroy How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell View from the Cherry Tree by Willo Davis Roberts The Headless Cupid by Zilpha Keatley Snyder The Terrorist by Caroline Cooney Jump Ship to Freedom by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier
My little site.
A Light in the Attic is on that list, but the bible isn't? I guess people don't know foul, disturbed literature when they see it.
See, I think that a more important list of which books were banned would be a list of which public institutions did the banning. If there are provincial, backwards-minded, insular communities out there banning books, I'm more interested in knowing where they are than what they're banning.
There are much more serious and interesting instences of banning, like the actual 1995 book burnings of Germar Rudolph's published findings (a German chemist who found evidence showing no signs of Zyklon-B use in Auschwitz other than in delousing chambers). Extreme or not, his publications were literally burned...
And another similar instance wherein publication was halted and pages were ordered torn out of a medical study which showed people of Jewish ancestry to be significantly genetically linked to the Arab and Palestinian population.
Why is this under YRO? It seems like if it's not under Main, Books would be the most appropriate section.
A Wrinkle in Time is apparently banned because it contains magic and "new age" nonsense. (http://solonor.com/bannedbooks/archives/001742.ht ml). Oddly enough, Madeline L'Engle was openly Christian, known to run with other prominant Christian authors like C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien. It boggles the mind.
Slashdot encourages normally quiet and law abiding Geeks to question authority !
Ban teh Slashdot now !
A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
Out of curiosity what gets banned overseas? I would figure most NAZI related material isn't permitted in France, Germany, or similar countries.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Its amazing how many of the books on that list were required reading in my public schools in California... Huck Finn (4th grade I think), Bridge to Terabithia (6th), Of Mice and Men (9th), The Catcher in the Rye (10th), A Brave New World (11th), A Wrinkle in Time, James and the Giant Peach (1st... okay, so the teacher read it to us), A Light in the Attic (2nd.. same), Lord of the Flies (10th), etc. etc...
If anyone needs any proof these books have messed us Californians up... Well, we did elect Arnold.
too bad ctrl-F makes this search too easy though.
Aahhh fourth grade,I remember our weekly trips to the school library.I remember the FIT my grandmother had when she saw I had not only a book on "body language but also Xaviera Hollanders "The Happy Hooker"(who the f**k knows how it got in there)hell,I was just impressed with the pretty lady on the cover,what did I know in 4th grade.
I had actually read about half of it before the old bat got her grabbers on it.
come to think of it I probably owe my love of reading to porn and comic books at a young age.
I mean c'mon granny,Im MENSA now,read everything you never approved of and more and you're just worm food who never had any fun.
Lets rethink this censorship thing.If you want kids to read,you have to LET them want to read.If johnny is gonna learn by reading The Necronomicon,Philosophy in the Bedroom or the Republican National Platform,LET HIM.
He may be a little different,but he's not gonna be an illiterate welfare baby if you let him develop some intellect.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
'nuff said.
If you wouldn't like your kids reading those books, fine; the library doesn't have to stock them. Schools choose what books they do and do not show, and it's well within their right to simply not accept copies of "Sex", but banning them altogether is certainly inappropriate. Ultimately, it's the reader's choice whether or not he/she wants to read a book, not the author's; no book should be completely banned.
Not shelved, fine. If there's a book in the school library that you'd rather not fall into your child's hands, petition to have it removed from the shelf, or made inaccessible to younger children. But banned completely, based on the objective opinions of a mother? No.
The administrator of my high school decided 1984 was communist propaganda. Thats OK too!
Well.
Someone once said, "where they burn books, they will soon start burning people".
This has happend many times in history... and someone said that "What we learn from history, is that we never learn from history and are bound to repeat the same mistakes"
Evolution of Language Through The Ages: 6000 BC : ungh, grrf, booga 2000 AD : grep, awk, sed
Is there some secret link in the story that doesn't go to a page that says:
/. mods don't actually look at the links, but isn't this pushing it a bit?
"The 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990-2000"
I know late stories go up sometimes and sometimes
Does anyone know anything about this book? I'm afraid to look it up on Amazon.com for fear that my buyer's profile will recieve nothing but gay themed book suggestions from now on.
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? The Adventures of Tom Sawyer??? This is what they're keeping away from kids? Perhaps they'll ban Dr. Suess next.
A number of the other titles on that list were REQUIRED READING when I was in HS (and younger). Evidently the standards are chaning for the worse.
I understand some of these, but some just make no sense.
The Adventures of "Huckleberry Finn" and "Of Mice and Men" are widely recognized great pieces of literature. "The Catcher in the Rye" isn't on that same level, but it's still up there. "A Wrinkle in Time" and "The Giver" are about the only popular thought-provoking children's science fiction/fantasy books. That's just in the top fifteen.
What really did it for me was "A Light in the Attic." Seriously. How many of you developed your appreciation of poetry as a child largely due to this book?
-Amalcon
An interesting contrast:
coming in at #40: What's Happening to my Body? Book for Girls: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Daughters by Lynda Madaras
and at #61: What's Happening to my Body? Book for Boys: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Sons by Lynda Madaras
Clearly, it's better for boys to learn about their bodies. I wonder what the rationale was for libraries that chose to ban one book and not the other.
Nobody comes out and says it outloud, but the real reason these books are banned: they contain advertising for products that are competitors to the schools' and libraries' official sponsors. :-P
A book entitled "The Alchemist." Basically, a short story about following omens and doing what you really want in life, etc. Maybe finding something you didn't know existed that could make everything better.
A quick 3-4 hour read that is definitely worth it.
gShares.net
-------
artlu.net
they probably would ban "The Goatse"
The webpage lists the top 100 challenged books. Of which I can understand why. Saying a book is challenged is like saying "I don't agree with this" and nothing more. If that were the case, I would agree with any book dealing with Sex, Homosexuality and the like for children in grade school. Stuff like that should be left to the parents to explain. Other books, I have no idea why. Certain Mark Twain has written some interesting things which challenge us, but Huck Finn ain't one of them. And the lot of others I grew up reading or seeing as PBS "After School Specials" -- I mean really? Give me a break.
Of course, nothing will substitute for good parenting. Parents should keep certain materials away from their children until they can understand it. If parents don't do their jobs, some one else will -- and those people won't exactly share your same values.
BTW, the link goes to the 1990-2000 list, where's the 2003 list?
SPAM solution made easy: 1 spammer, 5 cords of rope, 5 hourses, and fireworks. Be creative.
Most of the non-Shakespeare books I had to read in high school english classes are on that list...
Dark Nexus
"Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
What amazes me about the list is that 80% of the required reading that I did at my school (just a normal public school) is on the list. The idea of someone graduating high school without having read several of them truly troubles me.
You gotta find first gear in your giant robot car
How can you read The Giver, and then ban it? That's like banning 1984.
Was? She's still alive, you know...
What about the fact that one of our current presidential candidates, John Kerry, is calling for a book ban himself? In his relentless attack on a group of veterans, Kerry's campaign has asked the publisher of the book, Unfit for Command, to stop selling it and for bookstores to not carry it as well.
Agree with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth or not, this is still America and we still do believe in free speech. Well, unless your John Kerry of course.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
For a minute I thought that read "The Goatse.cx", which I was about to respond that it was probably a good idea that this be banned!
How the hell would a book like that be? "In a land where open space is vanishing, one man must fight against all odds..."
A bit more readable:
MIRROR.
Ignore the url. It's honestly a mirror. I promise.
-Aaron
My name is Aaron Landry, and I approve this message.
Were any banned? At all? Where's that list? Because if it's empty, then what's the big deal? I could start a campaign to ban public availability of the Bill of Rights, but that doesn't really put it in any danger of being banned(I would hope not anyway).
More informative what've been a list of the most banned books, not merely the most challenged. Anyone can challenge a book, and you can never please 100% of the public with your writing. There's always a kook willing to challenge even the most family friendly novel. What I'd be curious to know is how many of these challenges actually succeeded.
The hypersensitive people who are offended by that book (probably those bible-thumping trogolodytes in the south and the midwest who get upset about everything) need to be tracked down, rounded up, and placed into camps for orderly disposal.
First, it was published in 1973-- surely these people can find something a little more recent to piss and moan about! Second, teaching lessons are built around it. Third, I read it more than 20 years ago, of my own volition-- I think it was mentioned on one of those little bumper segments between Saturday morning cartoons back in the early 80s and I decided to check it out-- and I can confirm it's completely harmless.
Anyone see any more on that list that are public domain?
-jim
WTF?
I always thought The Giver was a great book!
offtopic?? the poster mentioned the bleeding article, i don't see how it's offtopic. maybe flamebait, troll, or overrated (if you're a coward/there's no better modifier), but not offtopic.
i've been seeing trolls modded offtopic a lot recently, anybody know why?
Make sure those bibles are all King James versions. Jack Chick, super fundie, demands no less. Other "protestant" bible version are the work of Satan/liberals/CmdrTaco.
give me banned book to read or give me death.
MANY of those books are in the UK's "nation's favorite read" books- the BBC (our state-funded tv/radio network) is actively ENCOURAGING us to read things like Huck Finn, Harry Potter, The Handmaid's Tale, Of Mice and Men etc (with good reason, I might add)
Good luck to the ALA!
There's hope for America's children yet!
"dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"
Abbie Hofffman's classic 60's underground how-to , now free online.
In meaningful terms, a banned book is one which the government forcibly prevents from being published or distributed. Like when Cuba jails librarians who distribute books unsympathetic to the regime (you won't hear from the ALA on that score).
To choose not to carry a book in your library is not equivalent to banning it. To have a policy of what books to carry and what not to in public libraries is fine too, and quite necessary (until the day when they can carry EVERY book). But to tell people that they can under no circumstances publish or distribute a book is evil, and happens far too often all over the world.
So your kids school library doesn't carry Goosebumps. Cry me a river. Have you ever read Goosebumps? It presents children with a malevolent world in which evil always triumphs, and the best you can hope for is to escape it unkilled.
If the ALA wants a cause, it ought to look into John Kerry trying to force the Swiftboat Vets to stop publishing their book.
I'm told that she once tried to get Sideways Stories from Wayside School banned because the first teacher in it was a witch and that must mean this book is a menace to all children. And that wasn't her only crusade. Mind you, this is a woman who once believed that God told her to have three more children (despite the fact they couldn't really afford to take care of more children) and move to the island of Java as missionaries.
Surprisingly, I haven't heard anything about her making any attacks on Harry Potter, but she has been slighly less nuts in the past few years, so maybe she's getting better.
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
How can you read The Giver, and then ban it? That's like banning 1984.
Because the truth must be snuffed out at all costs (by the people who benefit from the lie) before it upsets the status quo. A more delicious example of irony, I couldn't imagine.
----------
Homer: I was working on a flat tax proposal and I accidentally proved there's no God. [shows Flanders a sheet of paper with complex figuring on it]
Ned [flustered]: We'll just see about that. [reads the paper] Uh-oh. Well, maybe he made a mistake. [checks it again] Nope, it's airtight. Can't let this little doozy get out. [uses a lighter to burn the "proof"]
Our school district provides a local "mirror" of WikiPedia for our students to use since our internet bandwidth is pretty crappy during the school day. The we've also removed the ability for students to "edit" the articles locally after we found most the edits were *ahem* "less than usefull" - they can go to the WikiPedia main site if they really have something usefull to contribute.
Anyway, after many of our teachers and students have been successfully using this wonderfull research tool for over a year, our *new* directory of Library Media has dictated that we have to take it down and block the main wikipedia as well "...because anyone can submit information! There's no one who approves the articles! How do we know the information is accurate?!"
Oh, yeah?!? So Ms. know-it-all, what about all the other research that students do on the internet? Do you have to personally approve every web-site? Or are you just afraid students might get some information which doesn't take the same slanted view of the facts that your precious, 20-year-old text-books take?
The fact that this was already approved by the previous administrator doesn't seem to make a difference. God, how I hate ignorant, mis-informed, self-important, beurocrats with power!
"terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
Harry Potter I can understand... I mean that kid is just weird and geeky and talks to owls.
But "Sex" by Madonna? That is basically the pinnacle of literary achievement in the 1990s
TDz
The Road Ahead by Bill Gates should be banned in all countries due to its immense stupifying effect.
amazon should have this list posted with links to buy the books.
"if you like being able to read whatever you want, these titles may also interest you:"
i went to a 50's pop culture exhibit here in calgary a couple of years ago and they had an entire section of banned media from that period in canada. i couldn't believe some of the titles. they had the books in a barrel, implying they were about to be lit on fire.
the title i remember best in that pile was "lord of the flies", which was required reading for english when i was in grade 6 in british columbia.
it's nice to see i am not the only person that gets "the rage" when i see organizations trying to ban books.
scott king
I am sorry, but I am more than willing to take a karma drop for these statements.
Many of these books were banned solely on the basis that they contradicted the religious beliefs of a single group. I thought that this country was suposed to be a democracy, but every day I become more and more convinced that it is becoming a fundamentalist christian teocracy. I also read that in Texas, information on condoms is not being included in books as a method of birth control and STD prevention. And that evolution is being removed from science books unless they include Creationism.
As an agnostic, I refuse to have my life controled by a group whose purpose is to preserve myths and stories that are not based on science or on truth. Religious indoctrination belongs in the churches, not in the libraries or in the classrooms.
If you want to ban a book based on violence, war, sex crimes, oppresion, racism and injustice, then the Bible should be first on their list, if you dont trust me, then go and read Deuteronomy.
Ok, I am sorry, I will quit my rambling and go rent Farenheit 451 and pray for the future. I just hope that I dont make the mistake of praying to a god that is not being supported and sponsored by the government.
Cheers
Adolfo
Anyone whos institution bans books, how about buying some of them and sneeking them in to the library shelves? give them a label and put them in the right section. And if someone claims they saw you put the book there, act outraged and point out the genuine library stamp and card (showing previous borrowers). then complain that there are unsuitable books in the library - the threat of the local republican paper/parents finding out will shut them up. Then when they get rid of them tell the local sane paper that your school is banning books and stick another load back in. For added effect populate the database with some non-existent fetish porn mags and be sure to spread _plenty_ of rumours. geeks sometimes get some extra access to the library and database - abuse it! ;)
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
We got our lessons when the Germans had their book-burnings here during the war. You didn't. These whole procedings (banning books from (school) libraries) would be totally completely and utterly unthinkable here (Holland). I suggest to maybe try changing some things by using your vote come November.....
I'm 21, still finishing my university education, and my question is, which of these titles have you read? The following is my list, and for the most part I've enjoyed reading them all.
1. Scary Stories (Series) by Alvin Schwartz
5. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
6. Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
7. Harry Potter (Series) by J.K. Rowling
8. Forever by Judy Blume
13. The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
16. Goosebumps (Series) by R.L. Stine
22. A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle
24. Fallen Angels by Walter Dean Myers
32. Blubber by Judy Blume
37. The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood
41. To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
45. Bumps in the Night by Harry Allard
46. Deenie by Judy Blume
47. Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes (one of my favourites)
53. Sleeping Beauty Trilogy by A.N. Roquelaure (Anne Rice)
55. Cujo by Stephen King
56. James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
59. Ordinary People by Judith Guest
62. Are You There, God? It's Me, Margaret by Judy Blume
70. Lord of the Flies by William Golding (another favourite)
77. Carrie by Stephen King
83. The Dead Zone by Stephen King
84. The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
88. Where's Waldo? by Martin Hanford
96. How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
Anyone else?
This is not a sig.
Where I've been to school (both catholic and public schools) we were encouraged to read most of these books. I can't imagine being in a school that would ban them.
Letting kids read this book full of cruelty, intolerance, violence, sex, and deviant behavior (among other things) while it supposedly teaches the opposite will certainly warp their minds.
:) ]
[posting as AC for obvious reasons
the book by the swift boat veterans would be banned. See, little boys and girls, the left would ban books, too. It's not just a right-wing hobby.
Fear for your rights when either extreme of the political spectrum has its way.
I worked in a library many years ago, and one day, while returning books to the shelf, I noticed "Daddy's Roomate." I figured it might be funny, so I opened it up. I still can't tell whether I was more stunned or confused or whether I found it hysterical or disturbing. We're not talking about a book that simply says "it's OK for you to have two daddies," we're talking about a book on virtually every page of which daddy's "roomate" is topless and flexing his muscles. Showing them in bed together was a bit much, as well, but the fact that you couldn't turn the page without seeing him gardening topless or whatever it was he was doing was somewhat frightening. I didn't get it then, and I don't get it now. Showing two men hugging makes sense, kissing too. But they should keep their clothes on, same as any other children's book (The target audience was clearly ~5-year-olds). I'm not suggesting it should be banned, I'm just suggesting that libraries shouldn't necessarily stock it.
G
Am I, as a adult citizen of the United States, unable to obtain a copy of said books? If so, then they are not "banned". If a library chooses not to stock a certain book, that is unfortunate, but not a "banning" of the book.
Can you obtain a copy of "Penthouse" at your average Elementary school library? No (or at least I certainly hope not). But is it banned? No, since an adult can obtain a copy pretty freely.
If an author writes a book that simply stinks, and nobody will buy it, is he banned? No.
The first amendment protects you from PROCESCUTION for excercising your free speech. It does not, however, require anybody to LISTEN to you.
The top 10 from 2003 are:
Alice series, for sexual content, using offensive language, and being unsuited to age group. Harry Potter series, for its focus on wizardry and magic.
"Of Mice and Men" by John Steinbeck, for using offensive language.
"Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture" by Michael A. Bellesiles, for inaccuracy.
"Fallen Angels" by Walter Dean Myers, for racism, sexual content, offensive language, drugs and violence.
"Go Ask Alice" by Anonymous, for drugs.
"It's Perfectly Normal" by Robie Harris, for homosexuality, nudity, sexual content and sex education.
"We All Fall Down" by Robert Cormier, for offensive language and sexual content.
"King and King" by Linda de Haan, for homosexuality.
"Bridge to Terabithia" by Katherine Paterson, for offensive language and occult/satanism.
Link
I just read
. . . .check this out. Nice to know our guardians of learning read 1984.
You are assuming that being gay is inherent, like being black. Not only is there no evidence to support that, it is insulting to minorities.
This is one that always confounded me.
Books that deal with issues of race are often banned by people who object to racism. I sometimes think it's because they haven't actually read the books, but have merely done the kind of sanctimonious counting of "offensive" terms or situations (e.g., like the CAP Alerts. Or anybody remember that lady who talked to the Meese commission, and enumerated the number of times the word "horny" was used in Catcher in the Rye?). You could argue this for several of the books:
Huck Finn was clearly written with an anti-racist agenda, but was written ironically, from the perspective of an ignorant kid. It contains the word "nigger" many, many times. As a result of these two factors, it's considered by some as inappropriate for children.
To Kill A Mockingbird deals with a rape trial, and therefore could be considered inappropriate for kids. It also contains a lot of racial slurs and violence.
I think what's underlying the attacks on these books, though, is less these characteristics (which are usually the nominal reasons for banning them), but the anti-authority themes running through the books. They question the conventional morality of the times they describe. People who don't like that kind of thinking may find that mroe offensive than all of the ostensible faults of the books. They don't wnat to encourage this kind of questioning (of course, they're way too late to try to stop it now.)
You can see a similar effect, by the way, against some of the best anti-authoritarian books like Animal Farm ("it makes kids think animals can talk!"), Brave New World ("but it mentions sex!"), Slaugherhouse Five ("it's filthy!"), and so forth.
Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
www.fogbound.net
I'm pretty sure I concur with the banning of The Goats and The Giver.
I read a Wrinkle In Time by Madeleine L'Engle a million years ago and I forget the details. I've read all of the Harry Potter stuff, J.D. Salinger's Catcher In The Rye, Flowers For Algernon, S.E. Hinton's The Outsiders, the
... I never viewed her as a particularly controversial writer.
Lord Of The Flies, Slaughterhouse Five, A Brave New World, A Light In The Attic, both Mark Twain books, all three Stephen King books, and this is a bit embarrasing and out of character for me, but I *own* a copy of Howard Stern's Private Parts.
The last time I busted my roomie watching Howard Stern they were interviewing a female dwarf porn star and I must say this is the most
redeeming episode I've seen, but his book examines corporate ownership of radio stations and is a fine read in a Hunter S Thompsonesque sort of way.
I see a smattering of gay parents are OK books and various juvenile magic manuals - no surprise on these getting the evil eye, but what is Judy Blume's stuff doing in there? She has five of the hot 100 and I just don't
understand
Can anyone shed some light on Judy Blume's presence on this list?
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
Sura - 9 Ultimatum (Bara'ah)
Order Of Revelation 113, Verses: 127
[9:5] Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
"Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him." (Hadith Al Buhkari vol. 9:57)
5:51 "O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he among you that turns to them for friendship is of them." This freindship makes any Muslim a enemy of their own and deserving of the same fate as the unbeliever. This is because God does not guide an unjust people.
Sura 4:89 "seize them and slay them wherever you find them: and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks."
Sura 2:187-189 "And kill them wherever ye shall find them, and eject them from whatever place they have ejected you; for civil discord is worse than carnage: yet attack them not at the sacred Mosque, unless they attack you therein; but if they attack you, slay them. Such the reward of the infidels...Fight therefore against them until there be no more civil discord, and the only worship be that of God: but if they desist, then let there be no hostility, save against the wicked."
Sura 8:57 "So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson."
These classics are almost REQUIRED reading:
03. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings
05. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
06. Of Mice and Men
13. The Catcher in the Rye
22. A Wrinkle in Time
41. To Kill a Mockingbird
69. Slaughterhouse-Five
70. Lord of the Flies
84. The Adventures of Tom Sawyer
There is some dissent however, in the source code of the page the first 22 books are marked-up as <strong>, while the last 78 are just <b>.
Maybe their proofreading department is flawed.
Stuff that matters.
Remember, a Leftist can simply parrot his instructors and be assured of high grades and graduation. They have never been placed in a situation where they must defend or even examine their beliefs. They just nod along to get along, and are rewarded.
Someone who thinks for himself, however, will be forced to do four times the work for half the grade. Every statement he makes will be challenged, and even if his logic is perfect and his writing is sublime, his chances of flunking increase exponentially with his deviation from the party line.
And since even an unadorned link to this book, the most important book published this year, must be suppressed, you are modded down by the open-minded Left.
It's sad, really, that these imbeciles were never taught to think.
I love lists like this as they remind me of long forgotten books that I really enjoyed growing up. "How To Eat Fried Worms" was the funniest book in existence when I was 9. At one time, the most powerful book I had read was "Bridge to Terabithia". "Lord of the Flies" entranced me in Jr High. Those, and books like them, were all ones that really had an impact on me at a particular age but were ones that I have since forgotten.
This don't think it's odd that a list of banned books would have a lot of very good books one them. Good books tend to be more challenging to the reader and it's exactly those challenging parts that certain people object to. To those people, if it's not the same old pablum, then they don't want anything to do with it.
Still, there are some books on the list that are decidedly NOT great or even good books. "Sex", by Madonna. "The New Joy of Gay Sex". I'll have to admit that I can definitely see why somebody would try to get them banned from a public library. After all, you don't see Hustler magazine next to the New York Times at public libraries so why should you expect to find "Sex"? But on the flip side to that, they ARE books and as such, were I at a public library, I would fight any attempt to ban them.
And finally, it would be nice if this particular list had the following info:
1. Was the book actually banned? All it says is they were all "challenged" which means "somebody tried to ban it" to me.
2. WHY was the book challenged in the first place?
Deidre Honnold's "English With Ease: Mastering the Basic Ingredients of English"
highschool are on this list...
6. Of Mice and Men
41. To Kill a Mockingbird
47. Flowers for Algernon
70. Lord of the Flies
All required reading in my highschool english classes.
Why exactly is it that children are not allowed to see nudity ? Is it to increase their curiosity at the forbidden fruit, to turn them into hormone-laden violent teenagers ?
Does the "topless sunbather" they are complaining about look any different than any Barbie without clothes (which kids do get so see when they wash them).
Book of Vile Darkness0 21206ex 1 17a t s/dndacc/881610000
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/dx20
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20030
http://http//www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=produc
Bridge to Terabithia and The Giver.
I read The Giver and really liked it. Sort of a weak ending, though.
I read Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn when I was about 9, and the S.E. Hinton books in school in 8th grade.
Where's Waldo ? That's pretty ridiculous.
Flowers for Algernon is an incredible story. I think I read it first in High School but I read it again a few years ago and it was still very affecting.
The Earth's Children series might not be appropriate for middle-school kids, with it's neolithic sex scenes and all. Poor beaten-up Ayla has her first orgasm.. Oooh baby.
I don't think I'd want to have Daddy's Roommate or The New Joy of Gay Sex in a school library, but one could argue that the other sex manuals would be ok for High School age kids.
yet if bush was trying to supress any book it would of been first post with +5 Insightful. Mods = hypocrits
I wonder if Fahrenheit 451 is one of the banned books... I think that would be somewhat ironic...
Seriously though, the majority of the books in that list are great books, I have no idea why they should be banned.
Wow. Nice to see you have your head buried in the sand.
The last few decades of biological and psychological research has shown that homosexuality is, in fact, natural and innate. Some people are born with that orientation. And not just in humans.
Rotten.com has an article on animal homosexuality here that you might find enlightening.
The burning of books has long been a sign of an oppressive regime flexing it's muscles of propaganda to strike down things that counter their essence. From early Chinese emperors burning scrolls and burying the scholars alive to erradicate knowledge up to the Nazis burning books and sending off their undesirables to death camps. While some have been successful in their campaign to destroy knowledge and hide it, for the most part it is an exercise in futility. Reasons for burning books are typically to keep those sorts of ideas and concepts from the masses, reasons for banning books are to keep those sorts of ideas and concepts from the masses. In the age of the Internet this is a shallow useless act that only shows a repressive nature of somebody or some group.
Some books are banned because they showcase the shame of America, like Huckleberry Finn with the word nigger being used correctly in context as it was for the time the story was wrote in. Does banning this book for printing the word nigger as it was used make bigotry and racism go away, change history and the fact that it was used, miracle away American hypocrisy of liberty and justice for all except slaves? By not learning the truth and being exposed to facts we erradicate the lessons we should have learned. Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. If you have such a serious problem with a book, close the cover and get rid of it. If you are such a failure as a parent you don't want little George reading a book because you don't have the time to invest in your child, don't get them the book. If they have book because they do not want to follow in your silhouette, take it from them or find somebody to be the parent you are not. Nobody is making you read them, why force others down to your level of illiteracy.
Putting a book on a banlist is a quick way to get my attention, and usually much more reliable for a good read than the bestseller listings. Celebrate the banned book list, check them off as you read each one.
No book should be banned, censorship spawns ignorance.
-1 Overrated (Too many big words for me to comprehend)
And i suppose if you were a public figure, and someone wrote a book with the obvious intent to tarnish your name with false accusations (as it happening in this case), you'd be waving the flag and thumping the first amendment.
Bingo. You got it. That's exactly right. I'd be thumping the first amendment. I would say:
"America is a free country, thank God for that. Like every American, $GADFLY has the freedom under the First Amendment to write anything they want in their books. That doesn't make it true."
Observe the real public statements of real public figures, and you will see that many of them actually take this response.
She wanted to keep her job, and feed her family.
Sometimes you have to pick your battles, and some just are not worth the fight...
I'm sure she was in that position.. Id not loose any respect and consider her a 'sell out' because she had adult responsibilities to consider.
When you grow up you might understand.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Why why why?? +What's wrong with that book? It is sinister (all Dahl stories are), it doesn't have a true happy ending but why try to ban it? It just doesn't make sense.
Same goes for Slaughterhouse V (A Children's Crusade). A book about a terrible war? What's wrong with it? Was it because it was US and UK bombing the enemy and Vonnegut showing the ugly side? IMHO, It is one of the most pacifist book written to this date.
The adventures of Tom Sawyer???? These parents must be on crack!
Brave New World? Every young child should read it and understand technology alone cannot solve our problems.
Well somethings here prove America has serious issues with freedom of speach.
2 2077.st m
May want to read why Harry Potter is being attacked in so many places.
Then read this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/27
Even the Vatican approves of it!!!
I've went over a few of these on a blog post
Kerry has prohibited the republishing of his 1971 book, "The New Soldier". Fortunately, you can read an OCR'd copy free online.
C-SPAN has been replaying Kerry's "Winter Soldier" Senate testimony too. Surely someone's ripped it and posted it online somewhere?
It's hard to make stuff disappear down the memory hole when it's backed up on the Internet.
"What's Happening to my Body? Book for Girls: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Daughters by Lynda Madaras"
"The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain"
Furthermore if you ban a book from the library because you DO NOT WANT YOUR OWN CHILD to see it, your forbid ALL OTHER CHILD to see it even if they parent would have authroised them. In other word censor is always wrong in such case. For pity's sake your example is wrong too, "the new joy of gay sex" would be in the ADULT section of your library and certainly unavailable to 4th grader (at least around ehre we have very young, young, teen , and adult section !!!).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
that Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf is not on that list.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
I find it facinating that "Daddy's Roommate" is #2 on that list, while "Heather Has Two Mommies" is #11. Does this show that our culture is a little more accepting of a lesbian lifesytle?
Too bad that list isn't a click-through to Amazon to buy those books. I bet they could be raising a little bit of money from that website to combat censorship.
Wrong. The "evidence" you state are behavioral problems in nature, not genetic. There is NO evidence to state that "XYZ" gene makes someone gay.
Also, animals are just that animals. Are you stating we should act like animals and be gay?
Dude! Lesbians are HAWT!!!
The ALA says
A challenge is an attempt to remove or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person or group.
So, then logically no matter how shitty or low quality a book is, it is censorship to remove it or not select it in the first place?
Do you think I Know Why the Caged Birds Sings (a black girls coming of age in america) is of equal merit to Anarchist's Cookbook (stupid, dangerous explosive formulas)?
Duh. Anyone can defecate on paper and put it in a library. Taking it out isn't censorship, it is called selection. If librarians agree, why can't parents and others exercise the same selection?
Are librarians the sole guardians of our culture?
Kinda like Farenheit 911? I'm disappointed in Kerry if he does this. This country is based on freedom of speech. If I can buy Mein Kampf, I should be able to buy whaterver the heck I please. It's my money after all.
I'm curious since the website is down... Did they "outlaw" the book "1984"? http://www.orwelltoday.com
Smile.
So what's an appropriate process for determining which books are inappropriate for kids to check out of the school library. Keep in mind, schools have certain rights and responsibilities re: kids (locus parenti) that other libarary don't have.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
there is NO research stating there are ANY animals that practice ONLY homosexuality. what the research is REALLY saying is that BI-sexuality is 'normal', or rather, natural. Shit! i've seen male dogs jump on other male dogs (which, BTW, is actually a display of dominance, NOT sexuality), but that same dog would also be ALL OVER a female dog.
.... but getting pegged by my girlfriend, that's different!
and, to reiterate another poster, there is also NO research pointing to gene sequences saying "it's this gene sequence that makes you homosexual".
and innate?? give me a BREAK!!! I have NO desire to tup another guys arse, or him mine, or suck a schlong, or him mine
How on earth has this pleasant little story got onto the list?
She no longer "is" considered "openly Christian" for sharing space with "other prominant Christian authors like C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien" since both CS and JRR are quite dead. Now, the reasons why her book was banned may indeed indicate that at least in Alabama and Florida folks no longer consider her Christian. "Was" is therefore a wholly appropriate word choice, since the word captures both the loss of her companions and her support.
That said,"Wrinkle" and its sequels "Wind in the Door" and "Swiftly Tilting Planet" should be on every child's bookshelf.
Since I would have a problem having my money spent on some books, and you consider it an imposition to have me decide what books should be bought, why not just end the problem at its source. Why should the government be buying books anyhow? Public really is a misnomer, these purchases are by the government. You buy the books you want, and I'll buy the books I want. Please don't force me to buy your books for you.
These lists of banned books often provoke the idea of what is to be banned, or controlled for that matter. The other night, I stumbled across Vigilence, a Macromedia game where you watch cameras and try to catch people committing certain crimes. The catch is that while looking for one crime, another could be occuring, and failing to punish offenses, leads to more offenses.
As for books, at the end of my senior year in High School, I inadvertantly got Billions and Billions recommeded to be stocked in the school library. At least Sagan's works aren't being banned, but they do espouse ideas conservatives may find anethema (limitations of religion; abortion feasibility; science as the savior of the people; etc). Its a lot harder to get someone for ideas, than it is for mere words.
Life is irony, and nothing ever goes as planned.
Animal Farm was about the October Revolution, the start of the Soviet Union and the way that Stalin hijacked it and made himself "more equal" than everyone else.
No thanks - I really don't care to read Harry Potter, Where's Waldo, nor HOw to Eat Fried Worms. Am I supposed to "read a banned book" to "fight the system", "be a rebel", or other (usually left) nonsense rhetoric?
John Kerry is a Joke!
So what? So maybe its not genetic. Whether it is or it isn't doesn't matter. Its something people do because they have the urge to do it. It doesn't harm anyone. Whatever the source of that urge is doesn't really matter. The fact that its something that happens means its natural. Anything a person does is natural, if it wasn't natural, it wouldn't happen in nature (and no, we aren't above animals in that sense, in fact we are probobly below them because we look down on such behavior).
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
Only in the US would the fact that you can not get a book in a public or Public School library would it be considered "banned". You can still buy the books on this list if you wish. No one will break your door down take your books and throw you in jail. I for one have no problem that Maddona's Sex book is not available in my local public library.
The plus side is that people start to call this banning will make real book banning less likly to happen
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
So who says it's genetic? There are physical and mental conditions that are a result or development in utero (remember the thalidomide babies? not genetic but rather tetaranogenic). Maybe we're seeing gays now because of something hormonal in pregnant mothers. Or maybe bisexuality is the normal state for human beings and exclusive sexual orientation is the result of psychological or neurochemical states?
It isn't an either or question; genetic/behavioural. Neurobiology is never that simple.
RsG
Also wanted to add:
Who are you to say its a "behavioral problem" in nature. Its a behavior in nature, thats for sure, but home died and made you god to decide whats a problem and whats not. I'm reminded of something willy wonka said in the willy wonka and the chocolate factory. "If the good lord had intended us to walk, he wouldn't have invented roller skates." Most people see this as a joke but I think it is very, very true (whether you believe in god or not. I don't personally, but if you replace it with "If the universe had... it makes just as much sense).
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
...The ALA encourages the people of the United States to fight against the book bans and read a banned book today!
Yeah, I'm pumped up! I'm going to read Where's Waldo and make a statement!
It seems the conservative idea of freedom is to legislate, dictate, control what we think. Conservatives are afraid of free thinking and freedom of choice. I will say some of these books should be in and adults only section of a library, but people should still be able to choose to read them.
Choice is what Freedom is all about.
C. S. Lewis was actually an Anglican. J. R. R. Tolkein was the Roman Catholic.
(Pullman's first two books in that trilogy are good, but the third one falls apart halfway through. I found his resolution of the huge conflict the previuos two books set up with years of backstory deeply unsatisfying.)
how to invest, a novice's guide
I've known maybe one Jewish family that matches your description and many more Jewish and Israeli families (mostly Americans who were also Israeli) that don't. Of course, having never been to Israel, perhaps Israelis are different if they've never been to America? I don't know.
I've only met a handful of arabs and no palestinians. The arabs tended to range from very polite to very impolite, but with the exception of the most non-traditional secular arabs who I got along with, there was a tendency to quote scripture for what they believe but to simply ignore opposing arguments. If you say somthing that seems to disprove their point or expose a contradiction, they would refuse to discuss it and change the topic.
*shrugs*
I'm not sure what counts as 'worldly.'
[9:1] An ultimatum is herein issued from GOD and His messenger to the idol worshipers who enter into a treaty with you.
[9:2] Therefore, roam the earth freely for four months, and know that you cannot escape from GOD, and that GOD humiliates the disbelievers.
[9:3] A proclamation is herein issued from GOD and His messenger to all the people on the great day of pilgrimage, that GOD has disowned the idol worshipers, and so did His messenger. Thus, if you repent, it would be better for you. But if you turn away, then know that you can never escape from GOD. Promise those who disbelieve a painful retribution.
[9:4] If the idol worshipers sign a peace treaty with you, and do not violate it, nor band together with others against you, you shall fulfill your treaty with them until the expiration date. GOD loves the righteous.
[9:5] Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
[9:6] If one of the idol worshipers sought safe passage with you, you shall grant him safe passage, so that he can hear the word of GOD, then send him back to his place of security. That is because they are people who do not know.
[9:7] How can the idol worshipers demand any pledge from GOD and from His messenger? Exempted are those who have signed a peace treaty with you at the Sacred Masjid. If they honor and uphold such a treaty, you shall uphold it as well. GOD loves the righteous.
[9:8] How can they (demand a pledge) when they never observed any rights of kinship between you and them, nor any covenant, if they ever had a chance to prevail. They pacified you with lip service, while their hearts were in opposition, and most of them are wicked.
[9:9] They traded away GOD's revelations for a cheap price. Consequently, they repulsed the people from His path. Miserable indeed is what they did!
[9:10] They never observe any rights of kinship towards any believer, nor do they uphold their covenants; these are the real transgressors.
This is NOT flaimbait. Just because you don't agree with the poster doesn't give you the right to mod this flame bait.
Good, now post the tafsir for those verses.
CAUTION--OFFENSIVE WORD USED BELOW:
... and twelve niggers." This is supposed to be ironic and to expose the racism of the character. Irony is not well understood in 21st century America.
(this is from memory, so the quote is paraphrased--my copy of Huck Finn is at least 30 feet away!)
The offensive passage in Huck Finn is when Huck is told about a steamboat accident and asks how many people were killed. The answer is something like, "six,
Mark Twain (Clements) was no racist and was actually very progressive on racial thinking FOR HIS TIME.
Was it also a 2 for 1 double coupon day at the Dummy Store which you had to visit with the award of Mod points today?
Get it together pinheads!!
Well said, too bad I have no mod points.
evil is as evil does
Hey kids, how about just reading ANY book, banned or no.
Start with one, if you like it try another. With the amount of material out there, you will eventually find something that they like. If you have a tough time trying to start, here's two authors for you: Steven Brust and Neil Gaiman (and not just the comic books).
Read more, become eduacted, think for yourself. You'll be happier when you do.
Now if you excuse me, I need to polish my walker.
I see the following entries on the list:
40: What's Happening to my Body? Book for Girls: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Daughters by Lynda Madaras
61: What's Happening to my Body? Book for Boys: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Sons by Lynda Madaras
Why? Is the sexuality of girls more quationable the that of boys, or is this list simply a list of sexual prejudice?
//Wegge
It may not be on the top 100 list, but my sister-in-law was raised by Jehovah's Witnesses, and she was definitely forbidden to read Narnia. (She wasn't forbidden to read Harry Potter, but that's only because it didn't exist yet.) So, at least some Christaholics are consistent about these things.
:)
BTW, my sister-in-law would like me to pass along a magic word: "disfellowshipped". She says this word will make the aforementioned brand of god-peddlers flee in horror and not return. I haven't tested it personally, but it's gotta be worth a shot!
Sure it lists the books. But it would be much more useful if each book title was linked to a short article explaining some of the reasons that book is being challenged.
Incidentally, there are a few books there I somewhat agree with not being in public schools... Madonna "Sex" and that other book "New Joy of Gay Sex" don't really have much of a place in a school library. Public community libraries, well, that I don't see a problem with having any book...
But, give them some credit. Libraries do not have unlimited funds or shelf space. They can't just throw a book into their collection just because it was released. And some books are in such high demand that they need multiple copies, further reducing space and funds. This is the main reason I don't find the list very useful without explanation- how are we to know if the book is being censored, or the demand isn't high enough to justify the resources needed to stock the book?
That said, if a sizable portion of the community wants Harry Potter, or Sex to be in the library, and they refuse on some moral grounds or whatnot, that is wrong.
It would also be useful to see in the explanatory notes I'd like to see, whether it was the libraries themselves denying the book, or someone above their heads that says "You will not stock this book no matter what".
Another side note, several of those books I borrowed from the school library to read for fun, and several others(Go Ask Alice, Lord of the Flies, and others) were required reading.
It would be interesting to see a list of books children are required to read, around the country and around the world.
My 6th grade class was required to read The Scarlet Letter. I still question adultery as an appropriate theme for grade schoolers. If it was supposed to impart a moral lesson, it missed its' mark as we all knew the teacher was having an affair with the gym instructor. It shouldn't have been banned, but should it have been required?
And why isn't Fanny Hill on that list? ;)
If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it? ~ Albert Einstein
Long as they both are nice and girly and trim and athletic...
Fat and/or bulldyke dun cut it.
What I've heard (whether true or not) is that Kerry wouldn't dare take the Swift Boat Veterans to court. Doing that would mean he would have to release his records from Viet Nam.
If I have the story straight, he is the only one that can authorize having the records released. Supposedly, these records corroborate the lack of faith Kerry's superiors had in him, which is in part what the SBV allege.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
The 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990-2000
1. Scary Stories (Series) by Alvin Schwartz
2. Daddy's Roommate by Michael Willhoite
3. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
4. The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
5. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
6. Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
7. Harry Potter (Series) by J.K. Rowling
8. Forever by Judy Blume
9. Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson
10. Alice (Series) by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor
11. Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman
12. My Brother Sam is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier
13. The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
14. The Giver by Lois Lowry
15. It's Perfectly Normal by Robie Harris
16. Goosebumps (Series) by R.L. Stine
17. A Day No Pigs Would Dieby Robert Newton Peck
18. The Color Purple by Alice Walker
19. Sex by Madonna
20. Earth's Children (Series) by Jean M. Auel
21. The Great Gilly Hopkins by Katherine Paterson
22. A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle
23. Go Ask Alice by Anonymous
24. Fallen Angels by Walter Dean Myers
25. In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak
26. The Stupids (Series) by Harry Allard
27. The Witches by Roald Dahl
28. The New Joy of Gay Sex by Charles Silverstein
29. Anastasia Krupnik (Series) by Lois Lowry
30. The Goats by Brock Cole
31. Kaffir Boy by Mark Mathabane
32. Blubber by Judy Blume
33. Killing Mr. Griffin by Lois Duncan
34. Halloween ABC by Eve Merriam
35. We All Fall Down by Robert Cormier
36. Final Exit by Derek Humphry
37. The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood
38. Julie of the Wolves by Jean Craighead George
39. The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison
40. What's Happening to my Body? Book for Girls: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Daughters by Lynda Madaras
41. To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
42. Beloved by Toni Morrison
43. The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton
44. The Pigman by Paul Zindel
45. Bumps in the Night by Harry Allard
46. Deenie by Judy Blume
47. Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes
48. Annie on my Mind by Nancy Garden
49. The Boy Who Lost His Face by Louis Sachar
50. Cross Your Fingers, Spit in Your Hat by Alvin Schwartz
51. A Light in the Attic by Shel Silverstein
52. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
53. Sleeping Beauty Trilogy by A.N. Roquelaure (Anne Rice)
54. Asking About Sex and Growing Up by Joanna Cole
55. Cujo by Stephen King
56. James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
57. The Anarchist Cookbook by William Powell
58. Boys and Sex by Wardell Pomeroy
59. Ordinary People by Judith Guest
60. American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis
61. What's Happening to my Body? Book for Boys: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Sons by Lynda Madaras
62. Are You There, God? It's Me, Margaret by Judy Blume
63. Crazy Lady by Jane Conly
64. Athletic Shorts by Chris Crutcher
65. Fade by Robert Cormier
66. Guess What? by Mem Fox
67. The House of Spirits by Isabel Allende
68. The Face on the Milk Carton by Caroline Cooney
69. Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut
70. Lord of the Flies by William Golding
71. Native Son by Richard Wright
72. Women on Top: How Real Life Has Changed Women's Fantasies by Nancy Friday
73. Curses, Hexes and Spells by Daniel Cohen
74. Jack by A.M. Homes
75. Bless Me, Ultima by Rudolfo A. Anaya
76. Where Did I Come From? by Peter Mayle
77. Carrie by Stephen King
78. Tiger Eyes by Judy Blume
79. On My Honor by Marion Dane Bauer
80. Arizona Kid by Ron Koertge
81. Family Secrets by Norma Klein
82. Mommy Laid An Egg by Babette Cole
83. The Dead Zone by Stephen King
84. The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
85. Song of Solomon by Toni Morri
I can't blame them for banning The Giver.
The hard part, of course, is to get the parents to come to the library and have a conversation with the librarian about what books, or class of books, their child should be permitted to read. The motivated parents will come; for the unmotivated parents, have the default be that all books are accessible.
John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)
The article should have cited the 2003 list:
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.
Consider buying these books and donating them places where children can get them (schools, after school programs, librarys).
We already have libraries and none of those things have happened. What exactly is your point?
Well, the link I click on (same one you all did) gives a list for books from 1990-2000.
/. haters a reason to be right?
No offense, but can't we even get that right? If the person who posted the story bothered to read the title of the article he/she would of saw that.
I know this isn't a professional site and all, but why give the
Be seeing you...
Steinbeck, Harper Lee, Huxley? I cant wait to see the flavorless, culturally anemic youth that will result from the parenting and institutionalization that these people put forward. And they actually think they are saving their children from something; when in actuality they are harming them ten times more by not allowing them to live.
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
I looked over the list. Couldn't I just read something good instead?!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
There are religious fanatics on all sides. Vehement Christian anti-abortionists regularly kill people and blow up clinics. It's not even about religion. Crazies attach themselves to all sorts of causes--even our favorite, free software. It is inappropriate and wrong to judge a group by those who claim to represent it.
Or it could show that our culture is more accepting of two women as child-rearers, than two men.
I remember seeing "ass" and "prostate" in teh wind and the willows as well. It's not profanity, it's just a translation issue. For example, in england, an eraser is a "rubber", try asking a teacher for one of those. People like to make mountains out of molehills (Ha ha, molehills, get it, wind and the willows? Shoot me.) out of things like this rather than take the two minutes to explain how words can mean different things in different places to their kids. (Ie: A "handy" meaning a cell phone one place will get you a hand--- somewhere else.
Oh look, i've gone and made an ass of myself.
Why isn't Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses on the list?
You are assuming that being gay is inherent, like being black.
Let me ask you this: Why would someone choose to be vilified, outlawed, and unable to find a date?
Also, animals are just that animals. Are you stating we should act like animals and be gay?
... are they stating that we should act like animals and be straight?
I have heard many people say that "animals aren't gay, so therefore it's unnatural and humans shouldn't do it." So
Follow the logic:
If animals don't do it, it's unnatural and we shouldn't do it. (like writing Slashdot posts)
If animals do it, it's acting like an animal and we shouldn't do it. (like eating)
Nice logic.
What's also interesting, in the same light, is that What's Happening to my Body? Book for Girls: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Daughters by Lynda Madaras is at #40 on the list while What's Happening to my Body? Book for Boys: A Growing-Up Guide for Parents & Sons by Lynda Madaras is only at #61 on the list. So while apparently lesbians are somehow less offensive than gay men, teaching young boys about puberty is less offensive than teaching young girls about the same topic.
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
There are still fatuous people who want to ban Huck Finn because they think it is racist. Am I angry? Am I appalled? No, I am amused. The morons who want to ban books like this are the exact same kind of morons that Mark Twain was making fun of. The man is showing people for the asses they are from the grave--you have to give him props for that.
English is easier said than done.
It is definitely a *behavioral problem* for animals, since animals have sex only to reproduce(with a few exceptions), and homosexual sex does not permit that.
...as the completely consequences-free environment known as Hogwart's.
I live in a fairly conservative area. Many, many families I know are strict Christians (Protestant, Catholic, across the board), and the ones that have read Harry Potter nearly all love it.
Once you actually read the books, it becomes fairly clear that the magic is just there as a gimmick. The author needed a British public school setting, but that's been done to death, so she made one with a slightly different curriculum.
The "nearly" part above... a number of people were bothered, not by the "witchcraft" but by the fact that in the first couple of books, Harry can do no wrong. Rules are bent or overlooked, everything is forgiven or ignored once it's all over, he makes bad decisions and doesn't discover -- via consequences, like the rest of us did -- that they were bad.
The later books definitely change that (people get injured, killed, etc, as a result of Harry's screwups).
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
there is NO research stating there are ANY animals that practice ONLY homosexuality. what the research is REALLY saying is that BI-sexuality is 'normal', or rather, natural. Shit! i've seen male dogs jump on other male dogs (which, BTW, is actually a display of dominance, NOT sexuality), but that same dog would also be ALL OVER a female dog.
:(
.... but getting pegged by my girlfriend, that's different!
It's not research, but it's not bad as anecdotal evidence goes: Back when I used to raise fancy mice, I had one completely homosexual male mouse. Ticked me off, too, because he had really nice markings (tan and white spotted) and I wanted to breed from him. But he would only mount other males. If I presented him with females in estrus, he would either ignore them or attack them. Males, any males, he'd be all over. I never did get a litter out of him.
and innate?? give me a BREAK!!! I have NO desire to tup another guys arse, or him mine, or suck a schlong, or him mine
So why do you think it's a choice when someone else has no desire to get pegged by a your girlfriend, but tupping another guy's arse, or sucking his scholong, that's different? Could you choose to be homosexual? Could you get up some morning, and say "today, I think I'm going to give up all attraction to women, and go find myself a boyfriend"? If you looked at gay porn for the next six months, would you get the hots for other guys? If not, then why do you think it's somehow not equally innate for someone who feels as attracted to women as you feel attracted to men?
When I was in 3rd or 4th grade, I had read the book How to Eat Fried Worms. I got this crazy idea to take a worm to school and eat it in front of the girls to gross them out. So, I went in the back yard, dug up a worm and put it in a medicine bottle (to suffocate it so it would be dead by lunchtime). Needless to say, it wasn't dead by then ... Anyway, I had told the teacher what I was going to do but I guess she didn't believe me. I dipped it into ketchup and gobbled it down. Other than all the girls screaming and one of them throwing up, it wasn't too traumatic.
I didn't get in that much trouble but my mom got called down for a conference when I told them about the idea I got from the book. They ended up banning the book from our school library so maybe I'm to blame for this one!
America is truly a nation of intolerant blow-hards. Banning books! The very thought of it. Utterly, utterly disgusting. Land of the free my arse. You can't read, protest or even use the internet without the authorities poking their noses in. You have a government that condones the torture of innocents. The list goes on. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Freakishly enough, there was a copy of it in my public high school library. (When they don't rearrange the shelves every so often, stuff just accumulates for decades.) I found it because I worked in the library during the study hall period. One of my jobs was updating the catalog. I would have been about 16.
(This was the card catalog, by the way. They used paper then. We were old school. Er, old skool. Anyhow.)
Went to an assistant librarian. Me: "Says this was written by Hitler. Was it the same Hitler?" AL: "Yep. Didn't know we had a copy of that." Me: "It was buried in dust. Nobody's ever checked it out. *pause* Wait. He wrote a book?" AL: "Yep. While in prison. It's universally considered complete crap for obvious reasons, I don't know why we have a copy when we're short on shelf space."
Me: "I'm going to try and read it."
AL: *raises eyebrow sternly* "Why?"
Me: "To find out what a racist murdering dictator thinks like. 'Know your enemy' and all that."
She knew I had a level head on my shoulders, so she let me. I gave up after about 50 pages. Rambling incoherent babble, lemme tell ya. My grammar teacher would have flunked the bastard for run-on sentences alone. Dubya is a master of eloquence compared to this book.
It's a few hundred pages longer; presumably the anti-Semitic crap starts up later.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
I must have been lucky, I ready quite a few of those books by the end of high school. Mostly for class, as there are some fine pieces of literature in there. Several on my own. I still think at least a few of those should be required reading.
The Anarchist's Cookbook is the only one I see administrators having a valid problem with. First half is about making your own drugs, second half is about blowing yourself up (well, making explosives. Amounts to the same thing with a bunch of stoned teenagers). While some may see natural selection at work here, the school administration would nevertheless face a lot of tough questions.
This shows how stupid people are. The Harry Potter series is number 7 (a fictional story), yet the anarchist's cookbook (a how-to on building explosives) is about number 59.... wow.
...but I'm all for banning Madonna's "Sex". That was a waste of a tree if I ever saw one. It had the format of a "coffee table" book, but who the hell is going to put that on their coffee table?
What always strikes me as interesting about this topic is that people find it so "interesting" - as though there is something surprising or inconsistent about it. In fact most conservatives are quite explicit about the fact that male homosexuality is worse than female homosexuality.
Religious conservatives take this view because of the bible. Setting asside the question of whether the bible really condemns male homsexuality (there are good reasons to think that it does not). The bible certainly appears to condemn male homosexuality in some places, but never says anything that even appears to condemn female homosexuality.
Political conservatives tend to take this view because of their understanding of why marriage is good for society. Roughly speaking they think that the influence of women through marriage has a civilizing effect on men. So it is a bad thing if men don't get married to women - they remain uncivilized (more prone to promiscuity and violence). If women don't get married it just doesn't matter as much because they are already civilized in the relevant sense (i.e. inclined to monogamy and a peaceful life). The only downside is that they will not be able to exert their influence on men.
I'm an athiest so I don't buy the religious argument, and I am a libertarian so I don't buy the political argument. But at least I know what the arguments are. The fact that so many liberals are surprised to find that conservatives take different lines on male and female homosexuality indicates that most of them don't even know what the conservative arguments are.
Some freaked-out parent is trying to get this book (and its sequel) removed from the library in the public high school I attended.
I thought it was a powerful book. A little offensive in places, but the correct answer to that is, "okay, so your kid can read something else; this isn't required reading."
(Wow, I loved "Bridge to Terabithia". Tell me they haven't tried to ban that one too.)
What will they ban next? "The Phantom Tollbooth" because it makes kids think that dogs have clocks embedded in them?
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Let me ask you this: Why would someone choose to be vilified, outlawed, and unable to find a date?
Who the hell knows? But hackers and geeks have been living this way since the dawn of time... "vilified, outlawed and unable to find dates!"
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
The Kerry campaign is trying to stop the publishing and distribution of Unfit for Command.
Has Bush tried to have any of the hundreds of books that criticized him banned? No, not one.
Then again, you have a real disadvantage when the truth is against you, eh?
I watch Brit Hume on Fox News
Substituting '*' for 1:
"The 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990-2000*
*Out of 6,364 challenges reported to or recorded by the Office for Intellectual Freedom, as compiled by the Office for Intellectual Freedom, American Library Association. (See Background Information: 1990-2000 under The Most Frequently Challenged Books of 2000.) The ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom does not claim comprehensiveness in recording challenges. Research suggests that for each challenge reported there are as many as four or five which go unreported."
just check it out - google "How to Eat Fried Worms" and all you get up is pages of school material and school worksheets and all sorts. Banned my ass. Someones just trying to get more lamers to read em.
Kids shouldn't be reading books that promote witchcraft! They should be watching popular, healthy, moral TV shows like Buffy, Angel and Charmed instead!
You must think in Russian.
Same books that have been on the ban list for years and years...
Many of them like "The chocolete war," "of mice and men," "the outsiders" - I read years ago in jr high and were controversial and often banned then. Nothing is new... very few new books on here... Even ones like "Go Ask Alice" that I read in SIXTH grade [over 12 years ago] are on here.
No work should ever be banned. Period. If we are to live in an enlightened society, then we must be able to live with ideas which are contrary to our own.
In reading the various threads regarding this topic, I have come across many arguments for censorship from people who would probably consider themselves against censorship. Many have written something to effect of "I can understand why X,Y or Z is banned, but not A,B or C". It is my opinion that no work should be banned, ever.
Does this mean that I think "Sex" by Madonna should be on the shelves of an elementary shools library? No. It means that we (the people) should be free from censorship. Children do not fall under the category of "the people", so they should not be protected against censorship. I think it is allowable for a community, through it's local school board, to remove a work from their library. I wouldn't recommend it, but I can't argue against it. They have decided what they think is best for their children. If I were a parent and disagreed with the school board's decision, I could simply go to the local public library and borrow a copy of the work for my child to read.
I absolutely disagree with any attempt to censor any work (literary, musical, photographic, etc...). I view it as an attempt at controlling my thoughts, and I simply will not allow that.
Now this position of mine is limited to any attempt to make it illegal to read a book, or sell a CD. I do not think that economic pressures are a bad thing. Take Ice T's 'Cop Killer' song. I have no problem with it being sold, but so many people did have a problem with it that retailers simply stopped carrying it. That is economic force in action, not legal force.
I would tend to argue that we _geeks_ don't get much choice either. The few geeks I've known who started out geek and tried to be something else were sad, sad cases. They were still geeks, but they now were also suck-ups to the "in" crowd and invariably stuck at the bottom of the pecking order (just like before).
Of course, this is totally OT, since geekishness is a personality characteristic (intelligence + individualism maybe?) wheras homosexualty likely isn't.
RsG
Probably was the Bible. Ever checked out the Old Testament? Destroy cities, send the bears to attack children, offering your daughters up for rape, hate speach against homosexuals and a whole bunch of other people...that is the sort of stuff we might want to be keeping small children from, not Harry Potter.
May I ask you what is the point of your signature ?
I do agree that maybe we ARE skittish about nudity and kids for all the wrong reasons, I mean these are our bodies we are talking about here. But I'm not sure I disagree with the idea of teaching abstinence, as it IS the most RESPONSIBLE decision. That being said, we shouldn't make condoms etc. impossible to find for the population of teens who aren't dissuaded from having sex (and there will always be at least a significant number of them). But let's not pretend that it is as/more responsbile than postponing sex until we are more capable of dealing with the consequences.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Seeing this list of books reminds me of the non-logic behind the signs here in Upstate NY that says "Movies encourages teen smoking" and are endorsed by the state (far as I know).
In Finland we basically have freedom of speech, limited by Criminal Law chapters considering slander, libel, provocation to crime and provocation to hate.
The question is about judicial principles. We consider the negative freedoms (being free from something) to be heavier than positive freedoms (freedom to something), if they contradict. Therefore the negative freedom of being free from persecution surpasses the positive freedom of speech.
Therefore truly slanderous books, those provocating hate or provocating to crime or those containing criminal forms of porn (pedophilia, zoophilia etc) are forbidden.
Historical curiosities, like Mein Kampf, can be published as long as the historical context is made clear. Otherwise the hate chapters apply.
When USSR did still exist, the situation was more grave. Realpolitik simply walked over justice. All those books which criticized or showed out the bad points of Soviet system were banned as criticizing USSR was considered politically dangerous. USSR was, after all, a Totalitarian, aggressive militaristic dictatorship aiming for world dominance. Anything which could irritate USSR and provoke it to attack was considered politically dangerous. The censorship during the era was pure Realpolitik, and everyone understood it. Don't go picking blood off your nose, no matter how right you are. But nothing could prevent publishing the stuff in Sweden or Norway and importing it. After all, we knew pretty well what Realpolitik is and what it demanded to keep the country off wars.
Why do people on Slashdot always overgeneralize?
Many of them will even tell you that "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is correctly interpreted as "Thou Shalt Not Murder"--i.e., killing for a just cause is fine.
Actually Brain Child, the Swift Boat liars have had their numerous lies aired in public already...crawl out from under your rock a little more often. Having been proved as being lies, and showing a DIRECT connection to the Furor's re-election camp that makes the Furor breaking yet another law.
Given the book is full of lies and was published using GOP soft money at the behind the scenes direct order of the Furor...I don't blame the man for wanting it pulled. How about a book detailing how much of a cum mongering gutter crack whore your mother was and how you are a walking mistake from a broken condom she kept on hand and reused when she was earning rox and your daddy was off porking your 8 year old sister up her ass. Would you endorse that book whole heartedly or demand it be removed from print?
Thought so.
Republicans create truths that suite their particular needs at that time with no regard to reality or respect to others.
P.S.
What would Republicans know about truth? See: WMD in Iraq and the African Uranium connection already debunked by a JOURNALIST up to ONE YEAR before used as a lame lying excuse for an unjustified illegal war. Abu Ghairab torturing. Guantanamo Bay kidnapnees. Flordia in 2000. Tax cuts for the rich. The great unifier snubbing the NAACP for 4 years straight...guess blacks are not good enough to worry about this year. Rewrite of the Draft. Holding an olive branch while massing forces to invade North Korea should the Furor get another 4 years to ruin America. Claims of helping the economy soooooooooo much with over 1.5 million net jobs LOST and Poverty rising for the 3rd year in a ROW along with a serious rise in the number of Americans with NO health coverage.
Guess you don't have much truths as an advantage either do ya asshat.
Well, here's one example for you: gay penguins. They're pair-bonded, monogamous, and even adopted an egg together. And since they wear tuxes, they're better dressed than most waterfowl.
Furthermore, there's actually tons of evidence. See, for example, Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl. He lists well over a hundred animal species in which homosexual behavior has been observed, in the wild and in captivity. From dogs to wolves to dolphins to whales to butterflies.
Not always. In wolves, the dominant dog is sometimes the one getting mounted, sometimes the one doing the mounting.
I urge all of you that are parents, that once your children are old enough, you get them a full unrestricted adult library card.
I'm very grateful to my mom for doing this -- I wouldn't have been able to read "A Wrinkle in Time" in middle school otherwise. I'm also struck by a sense of "The more things change, the more they stay the same" -- middle school was 1977 for me, and the same thing was going on then.
Chip H.
Or it's sequel... find Waldo's father on each page...
What always strikes me as interesting about this topic is that people find it so "interesting" - as though there is something surprising or inconsistent about it. In fact most conservatives are quite explicit about the fact that male homosexuality is worse than female homosexuality.
OK, here's my theory. It's all about the number of penises involved in the sex act. If there are two or more, it's outrageous, should be banned, there outta be a law. If there's only one penis, then it's dirty, no one should talk about it, but it's legal. If there are no penises, then it isn't a sex act. Just count the dicks and you have your answer.
"She was a great man whose only fault was in being a woman." -- Voltaire
I just read
Yes, I missed your point. I reread your post and realize now that
i referred "these people" in your last sentence to
"African american students" in the sentence before.
Sorry about that.
My point was that the parent to my original reply was using a very poor argument.
Geeks/Hackers as well as many other socially classified groups have chosen to accept negative social and legal consiquences at times.
But this doesn't prove that being a Geek/Hacker is a characteristic you are born with. Rather it seems to prove that some people get their self-worth from things other than main-stream social opinion.
In other words, the parent to my original reply is full of shit.
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
You might be onto something there. The law counts penises too. In most jurisdictions you can't have a rape trial without at least one penis involved. A woman forcing another woman to have sex might get away with mere assault if she doesn't leave too many marks. No penises, no rape.
This is about freedom as in beer.
There seem to be two types of book on this list, and I'd say the No.1 is frequently stolen books. Libraries don't buy them because they aren't in the business of giving away books to keep. The No.2 set of books is pretty reasonable too, books about sexual subjects that target children. If more geeks went to libraries, the O'Rielly books would fill up the entire top 100. Why? Libraries don't keep the current technical literature well stocked. But, geeks tend to make enough money to buy their own damned books. Libraries are great places for finding books that aren't for sale and old periodicals, that's about it. Otherwise, libraries are a kind of outdated idea. I mean really, when was the last time you needed to read part of the bible, but your city's only copy was written on vellum in Latin at the library?
That is if there are any Bill O'reilly books on the list.
John
I dream in binary.
Maybe the objection to Harry Potter books is that in the Hogwart's school library, there is an entire section of books that are off-limits to the students unless they have special permission to read specific books.
While I've not read all of these books, in my high school The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier was a required reading. However it mentions masturbation, but for a group of 16 year olds that's not a big deal. I was distraught to see at least 2 Mark Twain titles on there.
Some of the titles I can see, however, "what's happening to my body" can help kids at "that stage" in life learn how to deal with things changing. It's much better then the "Fuzzy Bunny" cartoon they used on The Simpsons(tm)
DarkMantle I been bored, so I started a blog.
Amounting to desertion and helping himself to medals he could not possible earn since Daddy bought him an air national guard spot training as a pilot.
Stick that truth in your pipe and smoke it!
No reply needed. Your post speaks for itself.
By the way, are you aware that the Nazis were left wing socialists, you moron?
I watch Brit Hume on Fox News
On the other hand, I don't object that libraries may refuse to purchase "The Anarchists Cookbook". "So Johnny, why did you blow up the school?" "Well, sir, I checked out this book at the school library..."
Well, in any case the Cookbook isn't terribly reliable anyway.
Logic, macros, and more
Being critical of censorship of print media is prudent, but what about online censorship (particularly in high schools)? Many districts still use CIPA as an excuse for excessive filtering. My personal experiences are told here: http://igloo.bigfiber.net/~the1/incident.txt
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
I also realize that this is not a case of the federal government banning books nationwide, but still. Banning books is a very serious matter, perhaps the most serious matter in any society.
The dangerous thing is not that local governments and pressure groups manage to ban books in public libraries and schools, but that the federal goverment is not immediately challenging this in the courts. Government's role in any civilized society is to protect its citizens, against threats to both their physical safety as well as their civil rights, something the current US administration doesn't seem to grasp.
The list doesn't look good:
- Restrictions on travel (secret no-fly lists)
- People incarcerated without court oversight
- Scientific research influenced by the government to fit their political agenda
- Funding for scientific research steadily reduced
- Unchallenged banning of books in public libraries and schools
Talk about your slippery slope. America has a good system of checks and balances but they seem to not be working properly at the moment.And remember kids: Never trust a computer you can actually lift.
this list is hardly accurate, as some of the books on the list "Sex" by Madonna, and "The New Joy of Gay Sex" could very well have been banned by a elementary (primary) school library because the subjects of the books are not appropriate by any stretch of the imagination for youngsters. That being said, if a parent wishes to allow their children to read said material, there is nothing a school can do to stop them, and most libraries of which I am aware will allow kids to check out almost any books, provided they have parents permission. I imagine most books of 'that' nature are being banned not to censor anything, but because the school has a duty to parents to restict kis' access to that sort of thing, if the parent does not wish the child to see it.
vr/
dcviper
Ummm, err, say what, now?
>It is definitely a *behavioral problem* for animals, since animals have sex only to reproduce(with a few exceptions), and homosexual sex does not permit that.
Not strictly true, it has other possible advantages, not to the individual but possibly to the herd/flock/pride. For example it could provide surplus adults, with no young of their own they can help look after others' children (this is one theory anyway). I'm not an expert by any means, but just because one animal doesn't pass on its genes directly that doesn't mean it is a failure, it can also (with some luck) pass on it's genes through its siblings (which share 50% of its genes).
heck, muslims don't even have to go the mosque if they don't want to
yeah, wonder what the heck all those muttawa in saudi arabia are for...
most israelis i've met really could give two shits about being orthodox, zionism, etc. they were quite secular in their views.
otoh most arabs i've met seem quite reasonable individuals, until the discussion drifts to islam -- then you get the most incredible spiels from them on all sorts of wild christian and jew conspiracies, the supremacy of islam, etc. that comes off as right wing nutcases and white power supremacists.
yep, this is exactly the same thing i've experienced. it's pretty wild stuff debating islam with them. one can only imagine all the congnitive dissonance they are forced to process all the time.
the most amusing one i've heard from them is the argument that the koran is a book of science, and that scientific discoveries daily are "proving" the koran correct.
also, even the most "secular" arabs i've met were still wildly antisemitic. which implies that the racism in arab societies is fundamental to arab culture and not necessarily to islam itself (though many do exploit aspects of islam to foster it)
>Many people like to think that it was some violent coup d'etat or something that made Hitler chancellor then fuhrer.
a nd stabbed them in the back in the first world war.
,,
The Jewish revolution is russia was, the poor russian people had no choice and had to blindly obey the jews or get killed.
>>Hitler was democratically elected by good decent Germans (I say that with no intended irony) because they just didn't care what he was doing because at the time they thought they had bigger problems.
Bigger problems that where cause by jews. read the
Balfour Declaration, to see why millions of innocent americans died.
So as the germans saw it; the jews had taken over the east (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution)
They used us to fight for them and millions of my people died.
>>They let themselves be bullied by the browncoats in the street, they let themselves be frightened by the Communists.
Above point the communist were jews, so they had all reason to be scared. karl marx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx) was jewish so most jews in that time where communist; that was the people the gestapo hassled.
>> hey had the power to stop Hitler's tyranny but they didn't stand up for their rights because they were obedient.
Why would they want to stop someone that was doing something good for the german people?
All you have to do is get some history movies to see the millions of germans that were happy to him.
>>Do what you are told when it is wrong and you are no better than the guards at Auschwitz operating the death chamber.
How would i know if it's wrong if everyone around me thinks it's right? Think about the poor soldier that is sent to iraq to kill the poor iraq's who don't want to be taken over by a foreigh government. Everyone tells him (soldier) that is the right thing, The TV says so the radio says so all the people that surround you say so. So as his mind would see it it's not wrong.
>> Nazism started as a simple mix of national pride and workers rights, both intrinsically good things, but pretty much the complete basis of the worst tyranny in recorded history.
Wrong again; The worst tyranny in recorded history is the death of 80 million russians that got killed by the Bolshevik party.
That is almost 10x more than the alleged 6 million jews hitlers party killed.
Are you saying that those 6 million are worth more than the 80 million russians the soviet jews killed?
if you think so, then you and all the people that think like you are scum.
>>Nazism was truely a good thing for Germany for a while and the Germans loved it.
That's right
>> The Germans could not see what Nazism really was, because by the time it unveiled itself it was too late and Germany was already dependant on it.
Nazism; abbreviation for Nationalsozialismus; basically says "Country X for People X" in the case of the germans "Germany for Germans". Just like todays russians say "Russia for Russians".
>> Can you confidently say that there is nothing evil like that lurking in our society with any more cirtainty than the Germans had? But we are far more fortunate than the Germans of the nineteen thirties because we now KNOW what can happen and we CAN do something about it. However Nazism happened to good, well meaning people before and it can happen to us too, you just have to let it. Will you?
Yes we are more futunate than the germans. We know what kind of state jews cam make; Soviet Union, KGB. Mass killings. Censorship.
You know it's already happening to us today; if you take a close look at our government you will see who trully is in control;
But we know what is happending and we can do something about it.
I'm sick of all this german bashing; History is one sided. Do a google search and you will see that what i say is right.
I'm not a german and i'm not a nazi. I'm some mexican guy who's sick of all the lies.
Why I must admit that some of these are pretty benign, let's not forget the ALA's stand on porn in the library. Something we could call, "Take Your Child to View Porn Day."
Lesbians are "less offensive" because all the religious types who do this crap are secretly aroused by the idea of two men having hot steamy gay intercourse, and so lash out more violently against it. And teaching boys about their bodies is of course sometimes good, it makes them men, whereas girls who know about their bodies are destined to be sluts. Filthy, nasty little sluts, instead of the obedient, righteous sexual chattel of one ignorant, prematurely-ejaculating man.
Freedom: "I won't!"
That's great, except Hitler WAS NOT democratically elected, so your entire post is based on a fallacy.
Elaboration: Hitler's party NEVER gained control of the Reichstag democratically. The only way they ever passed the law to give Hitler full power was with the help of other parties. After this, the Reichstag was just a rubber stamp for Hitler, all made up of unelected Nazis.
Elaboration: Hitler ran for president in 1932....and LOST, to Hindenberg. Twice, in fact, because the first loss Hindenberg only got 49.6 percent (in a field of four) and the Constitution required the winner to get 50.
Elaboration: Hitler became Chancellor by Hindenberg's appointment in January 1933, even as his party had lost seats in the last election.
Elaboration: Only after becoming Chancellor and using his power to suppress all opposition did Hitler ever win an "election," which was not a real election, since there were no opposing candidates, but a "referendum" on Hitler, and which was not a real "referendum" because the Gestapo were watching voters in wide open balloting areas.
I am aware it may be too late in the game in this thread for anyone to notice this, but truths must be fought for, and particularly we must fight that pernicious myth that Hitler was democratically elected that is being spread around nowadays.
You are an idiot. Lefty wacko socialist. What is Kerry's voting record? you can't find it because he hasn't been there to vote in 19 years. Kerry is a scum sucking liar, period, end of story. He has NO stand on any issue, he changes his mind constantly can't seem to decide where he stands. Kerry has no plan for defense, no plan for taxes, and no foreign policy. I suppose he will get his butler to make peanut butter & jelly sandwiches. He is a traitor, liar, socialist, elitist, and a total moron. You are a moron if you think the US will be a better place with him as it's leader.
If Kerry was the answer, it must have been a stupid question.
The UN - The largest "political" cause of death.
Is there a banning of books in Germany nowadays? Can somebody name some titles of books which have been recently banned?
As has been pointed out, Mein Kampf is not banned, it's simply not being reprinted: Rechtslage Mein Kampf.
Which would you rather see, two chicks eating each other out or two dudes giving it to each other in the poo chute?
My point exactly.
"No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
Ah, the classics. Some books will ruffle feathers for a century.
Beyond that, I was amused to see that I couldn't always decide whether a book was hated by classic fascists or the "politically correct".
I'm not sure if this was the book, but at a library in Shaker Heights, Ohio, they had a terrible time keeping a book on two fathers in stock. It may have been "Daddy's Roomate" or something along the lines of "My Two Daddy's" or something like that.
Anyway, at the Library, they had a great deal of trouble keeping a legitimate intact copy in stock because the book was so often stolen, vandalized, etc. The main thing was some homophobe(s) or zealot(s) who were so insecure they felt threatened by enough by gay men they had to cut out pictures of one of the men from any page where two were present, so that kids would see only one daddy.
Stupid only really hurts yourself, but Ignorance and Bigotry hurts everyone.
If I had a real
Oh my GOD! They banned Madonna's book! Imagine the lost knowledge that ... oh wait ... it wasn't even good for porn.
"We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
As the article makes clear, those are not behavioral "problems", as you would like to think. They are natural behavioral patterns that have an evolutionary purpose and show homosexuality is a a natural part of their existence.
The point being if they are for animals we can draw parallels to humans. You ARE an animal.
> The title actual is
> "The 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990-20001".
Includes 'The Time Machine' by H.G. Wells?
and innate?? give me a BREAK!!! I have NO desire to tup another guys arse, or him mine, or suck a schlong, or him mine .... but getting pegged by my girlfriend, that's different!
Great argument. You've shown that you're heterosexual, congratualations.
Could you maybe use that tiny mind of yours to imagine that maybe some other people think the reverse?
If you read the article, you would see that the homosexuality is not just a "display of dominance", but also just pure recreational sex.
I am an American highschool student and all of these books were required reading. Obviously you haven't the slightest clue what your talking about. Not only that but the top 20 books on the list can be found in almost all local book stores. It is so scary how many foreigners think American's don't know about life and culture in other countries yet go on spreading idiotic lies that they heard about American's without even knowing for themselves or atleast trying to validate these statements.
Creative Demolition
1) It is not clear to me from the article what age groups are losing access to these books. Their break-down by institution does not, as far as I can tell, include any category more sensitive than "school" (>2000), "school library" (>2000), "prison library," and so on. Six-year-olds and sixteen-year-olds are a bit different in what they should be able to read. You want an appropriate amount of challenge to be available--you want to encourage critical thinking to the extent they are able.
2) That is why school lawyers invented *permission slips.* We were required to read (mostly "canon") works at school, including _Huck Finn_ and _Lord of the Flies_, but you could be excused to work on another project while 10th grade English watched & discussed _Apocalypse Now_. If a school does not attempt to tackle these materials, if not by middle school then certainly by high school, then they may be keeping their students from a successful liberal arts education. (Don't laugh. You'd be surprised how many professionals such as doctors do undergraduate work in philosophy or English--stories. Human stuff.)
3) You assume that the parents will "fill in the gaps" if things are not available at the library. However, not all parents are motivated to take their kids to another library or bookstore; not all kids have money or access to public transportation. I expect the people who are reading this discussion are not these parents, but, you know, I'm trying to watch the game, and you asked that last week, so stop nagging already. Not everyone is within walking distance of a municipal or university library--removing books from high-school shelves can make those materials *impossible* to get for those without resources. (Think accurate information about sex-related biology.) As if it weren't bad enough just coping with the budgets.
The web site states that for the period from 1990 to 2000, there were "6,364 challenges reported to or recorded by the Office for Intellectual Freedom".
That's about 579 challenges total per year, or only 11-12 challenges per year in each state of the union.
Looking at it another way, the ALA reports that "There are an estimated 117,859 libraries of all kinds in the United States today." Of these, 102,990 are classified as public libraries or school libraries. Which means that over the course of 1990-2000, only 6% of these libraries received any kind of challenge.
Now, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Given that reporting of challenges is voluntary, they may very well be under-reported. Still, the nature of controversey surrounding a challenge seems to be the sort of thing that would attract attention - in many cases, they are specifically publicized (by the challenger, or the library) in order to attract attention. So it's probably safe to work from the assumption that challenges are not drastically under-reported. Still, let's err on the side of cuation and say that we assume that challenges are drastically under-reported, and that there are actually on the order of 6000 challenges per year.
Given those figures, an individual library would expect to deal with a single challenge about once every 20 years. Of course, that assumes that each library is an autonomous unit, which is probably not the case for school libraries - I'd expect that a challenge in one school library for a district would probably affect all other libraries in the same district as well. So the time period between challanges for a school library system might be smaller, but even then, I'd be surprised if any particular school district had to deal with more than a couple of challenges each year... and in that case, well, at least it shows you have active parent involvement in the district, right? So there's still something positive coming out of the whole mess.
Now, I'm not trying to downplay the significance of these challenges. On the other hand, their relatively low frequency seems to indicate that they're not so much an issue of pervasive censorship, but instead appear to be an issue of individual libraries making the occaisional misjudgement about the desires and mores of the communities they serve.
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
The top 100 list is "The 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990-2000," not the 100 most banned books of 2003. There's a nifty top ten list for that.
Also, there's a clear distinction between "banned" and "challenged."
To QUOTE (emphasis added):
"A *challenge* is an attempt to remove or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person or group. A *banning* is the removal of those materials. *Challenges* do not simply involve a person expressing a point of view; rather, they are an attempt to remove material from the curriculum or library, thereby restricting the access of others. The positive message of Banned Books Week: Free People Read Freely is that due to the commitment of librarians, teachers, parents, students and other concerned citizens, most challenges are unsuccessful and most materials are retained in the school curriculum or library collection."
And the negative message is to dupe folks like the submitter of this article into thinking the Dark Ages have fallen upon us.
READ FOLKS. Books are always banned from people who *don't read*.
Fix this travesty of an article now please. There's enough *real* dangerous abridgement of freedom going on in this country right now without yelling "Fire!" in a movie theater.
Thank you. TD.
and you're not going to get the answer on slashdot, or even the web. Find some books. Even then you won't get consensus among Christianity.
Even in a Christian Bible, the figure of the devil changes from one end of the story to the other. He rarely makes appearances in the Old Testament, as you said. Even in the story of Job, the figure there is more of a prosecuting attorney -- no, seriously -- than evil incarnate.
As the concept of a Hell became more solidly defined (from hell as being "separation from God" to "a big pit with fire and darkness and country music"), so did the concept of its most important inhabitant (although whether he's the boss, or the chief prisoner, depends on who you talk to).
Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle wrote a short novel, Inferno, in which a sci-fi author dies, goes to hell, and finds out it's exactly like Dante described it. :-) The character keeps trying to find an explanation -- any explanation -- other than "take it at face value." It's a fun book, but the part at the end where he decides he's finally found a good reason for Hell's existence is (while not a new thought) fascinating.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
Kaffir Boy by Mark Mathabane
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Lord of the Flies by William Golding
The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton
Some were also junior high books, and most of them pre late 90's were available in the highschool library.
Read some of the Scary Stories books when I was 10. They were offered in those book order form pamphlets.
1) you're very much accurate on that mark. The information provided is totally inappropriate as it doesn't provide any context. They present a list, and claim that some freedom is being violated here, without providing accuracy on exactly how.
2) Saying that my child who I feel shouldn't have to watch "Apocalypse Now" can just do something else during the time, unfortunately creates an exclusion process, and this is the same tactic used against public prayer in school. The people against the school prayer (even when entirely student lead) can't just provide an alternate activity, or they can just abstain. This will generate a stigma. And actually, I knew that philosophy majors tend to make incredibly good lawyers because they are (and this is quoted from a "Why study philosophy" brochure) "belligerently argumentative."
3.) The school system is unfortunately driven by a more overriding constraint than just "teach my child". They need provide a safe school environment, and an appropriate school environment.
Why can't we have prayer in school? That's violating the right of freedom of expression, and the freedom of religious action. Why? because it violates the rights of too many others to allow it.
Why can't we have certain books in a school, or as a classroom assignment? Because some parents feel that some books are inappropriate for children at that age level. We're going to violate some people's right to this freedom against censorship, because there is an overriding freedom being infringed upon by allowing these books. That is the right for a parent to decide what is and is not appropriate for their children.
So, basicly you're making the claim in 3, that the right for the lazy parents, who don't want to do their job as a parent, are overriding the rights of the active parents, who pay attention to what their children are doing and reading in school, and outside of school.
You basicly want to punish these parents who are taking an active role in their childs development (as they feel a good parent should) because some parents want to be lazy bums and let their kids do what they will? Honestly, if a child has a parent such as this, they're going to care less about what books are in the library, and more about what kind of drugs are being sold on the street.
Squeeky wheel gets the grease, and guess what? A legal guardian of a child has final say over what is appropriate or inappropriate for that child to read, and they should have every right in the world to suggest that a book not be available for a child to read. And if you say this is them pressing their social beliefs on others, well by telling my child he can't pray in school, you're doing exactly the same thing.
I am unamerican, and proud of it!
The very idea of banning books disturbs me, almost as much as destroying them, but I can kind of see why someone would ban that Scary Stories book, especially from public schools. I found that in the school library as a kid, and Jesus Christ was it the scariest damn thing I had ever read. It frightened me for years after that. I recently bought the Scary Stories Collection at the bookstore, and it still managed to creep me out. Jesus.
That said, when I was in junior high, I often had to sit out of class due to health reasons, and they made me sit in an extra room in the office. Maybe they hadn't noticed, but they also used that room to store all the books they'd removed from the library as inappropriate. That was some good reading, I must say.
[insert witty quote here]
The only kind of fiction banned in Denmark is child porn. I think there's some kind of exception if you can argue that it has "artistic value", so The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect might be legal. (Read chap. 8 to see what I mean, but you now know what to expect. Be warned.)
There is a nazi local radio station that used to receive government culture support funding - like every other local radio. This was not very popular, so recently the rules were made just flexible enough to deny them funding. I suppose Denmark is so lenient in this regard because it's obvious that the danish nazis are a bunch of jerks who can't even tie their own shoes. (They were even during the german occupation)
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
Here are some links for other entries in your post:
Check out Chad's News
I found a site called the banned books project to be very useful in figuring out why various books on the list were banned. Just search on the name of the book.
Check out Chad's News
As other posters have mentioned, parents can be extremely effective just by talking to their children about what they are reading. A few reasons why parents may not:
a) They are working 2-3 jobs to make ends meet.
b) They are intimidated by books, schools.
c) They are overwhelmed with problems with other family members, such as chronic illness.
d) They are "lazy" or distracted by their own activities.
e) They are repeating their parents' parenting.
Perhaps such parents might "care more" about what drugs are on the street--but they also probably care about their children and education, even if you wouldn't recognize it. But perhaps these children who have already "lost out" just don't matter.
Your parallel with school prayer suggests exactly why teachers are so cautious with assigned books (e.g. including _Kaffir Boy_ as one of several options for small groups in the ninth grade classroom). However, it is not at all a parallel case for libraries--students both read and pray silently. (And probably should read silently, to keep from being called retarded or a weirdo, and definitely should pray silently, as Matthew 6:5-7 explains.) It seems to me that you are arguing that the library should babysit (religiously) the students, that you are asking the library to make materials disappear so that the parents won't have to face actually discussing their beliefs and concerns with their children. (I am mostly thinking about secondary school, at which point most students have some idea what Mom and Dad do and don't approve of, and have been or are preparing to be baptized/confirmed/bar mitvah'd.)
I am not advocating that the library stock everything indiscriminately. I do, though, think, particularly in the secondary school, a few parents should not be able to override the judgment and expertise of librarians and teachers as to what is generally appropriate and educational for their clientele. Whether they are left or right, whether they report back to their parents or not, whether they would take the opportunity or not, if _The Handmaid's Tale_ or _The Color Purple_ is made unavailable, or tucked back somewhere patrons can't see it, then the secondary-school librarian has gone back on his or her duty to provide opportunities for intellectual growth and engagement.
...until 1984 is banned for sexual content?
"banned from various ...public schools around the nation."
Some may have simply been a case where students were reading the book in class while the teacher was trying to teach.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
I don't know about you guys, but Roald Dahl's Witches really scared me as a child!
;-)
Meeting my aunts afterwards was never the same again! (but then I grew op
...that so many of the books on this list are classics. Many were on the curricula when I was in junior high school, or high school.
I read all of the following books as a kid and I don't doubt they had some effect on my personality growing up. I wouldn't want my children to be deprived of any of these:
5. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
6. Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
13. The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
22. A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle
27. The Witches by Roald Dahl
37. The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood
41. To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
47. Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes
52. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
56. James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
70. Lord of the Flies by William Golding
84. The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
I see your argument here. But again, the problem is that a very small group of people can effectively remove school prayer. There was a town where all the students participated in a student led school prayer. A single atheist mother comes into town with her two children, and she complains, and the school prayer is removed. You literally have an entire student body that wants the prayer, but the interests of a single lone parent outweighs that entire group, due to the interests that school should be seperated from religion.
It has actually been determined that children may not even pray at school if they were in public. This is basicly saying that they can't do it at all, even silently.
It just tends to be that a number of people (usually from the left) are very strongly opposed to suppressing any point of view, but they forget that those views that feel that some material is inappropriate and shouldn't be discussed, or should wait for a later period is also a valid point of view. They want to tear down and away all these closed-minded people, but they forget that in doing so, they are being closed-minded themselves.
I as a parent am solely legally responsible for determining what I think is appropriate content for my child to see. I was witness to one parent taking his children to see Super Troopers (elementary school age children for sure). This disgusted me, and I feel that it was wrong, but I didn't tell him it was wrong. They're not my kids, and I have no right to tell him how to parent his children.
What I want, is the same respect. If I feel that my child shouldn't be reading about rape until such an age that I feel it is appropriate, then I have that right. And guess what? This is a situation where the minority's rights override any majority's rights.
It's honestly just that simple. I can't have prayer in school, because the minority's rights supercede any majority opinion, so also does it follow in this situation.
Many people complain about "Banned" Books, and many people complain about Prayer in School. Both are arguing to have the majorities opinions outweigh the minority to a point of oppression.
I am unamerican, and proud of it!
I agree, now if we could only extend it to the economic system too, industrial democracy.
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
And yet these people aren't called "Christian Terrorists", which they are.
But if Muslim extremists do the same thing then they're called, "Muslim terrorists" smearing the whole religion.
Oh, and let's not forget conservative commentators who advocate "killing all the leaders" of muslim nations and "converting the people to Christianity" like Anne Coulter did.
How is that really different than advocating for the death of the author of "The Satanic Verses"? Answer: It's not.
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
This reminds me of the time my physics teacher confiscated a VHS of "Naked Lunch" from me because she thought it was a porno. :)
Actually, a closer look at Orwell's other writing will show you that Animal Farm was meant as an allegory on all forms of powermad regimes using a revolution to grab power.
It's unfortunate that the closest thing Orwell had was the Stalinists taking over the Russian Revolution, but the book was meant as a mere example of a more general principle.
The narrow interpretation of Orwell's allegory is usually used by the right to defend their own version of the Animal Farm society, by using the 'Godless Commies' as their Farmer Jones.
Mart"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
In short, these specific problems do not exist in the Torah, (which does not claim to be magically preserved from transcription inaccuracies) but only in translations, which oddly enough are alleged to be "inerrant" by fundamentalists.
Read the Source Code, dude.
Last time I checked I am an animal.
I mean, I'm not a vegetable or a mineral or a blue-green algae, so by process of elimination I must be an animal, right?
"The joy of killin black, homo, kikes"
I am sure that the rest of you fine liberals will join me in calling for the wider publication of this fine book. We need to work together to get it into the hands of small children everywhere.
Is there anything that YOU would find offensive?
It is not prejudice, it is just judgement.
8-PP