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!"

Comments

So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

What I can't figure out is why To Kill A Mockingbird was banned. It's an excellent book and an excellent movie as well. I find it absurd and offensive that it's being banned.

The book I found most difficult to read in high school was Night. It's a vert graphic description of the holocaust. I gave up on reading it because it was so disturbing to me, and just took a bad grade. I can't believe that hasn't made the list.

Re:So What?

[FrivolousPig]

"* 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."

Perhaps it teaches attention to detail?

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because he doesn't like Angelou doesn't made him racist. Personally, I very much enjoy her work, too.

On the other hand, I don't enjoy the work of EE Cummings. Some of his work confronts the issue of race. It's not because I disagree with him, I just don't enjoy his style.

My point is, just because he doesn't like Angelou's work doesn't mean he's a racist. Am I a racist because I don't like Cummings' style?

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't remember how boring it was until I saw the movie as an adult awhile back and recalled the story.

What I remember about school - especially grade school - was how politically correct and ethnic everything had to be. You couldn't even have a decent fucking picture book without every character being named Santos and Pepito and eating fajitas. Talk about a way to alienate most kids!

There's nothing wrong with having variety out there for children to identify with, but much of the content we were presented with as children suffered in the entertainment and interest department because they focused more on making sure that they had one character from every major ethnicity and and mentioned as much as they could about different cultures at the cost of like.. you know.. HAVING A GOD DAMNED STORY.

Re:So What?

[secolactico]

My parents vetted my reading

So did mine. And that was a sure fire way of getting me to obtain and read those books ,-)

Your point is valid, tho. I get to decide what my child reads or not but I have no business doing to same with your kid. The problem is, how do I know if my kid gets a book I don't approve of at the school library? Maybe he reads it there and doesn't bring it home so I'll never find out.

A desicion has to be made by the school custodian (or PTA or whatever) as to what books to have available at the library. It is unrealistic to think that the librarian will have a list of allowed books per student.

If I'm interested in making sure my opinion counts in deciding what books will or will not be available to my kids at school, I'll make sure my voice is heard at the committee that does the deciding.

That said, I believe children should be able to read what they please and form their own oppinions instead of being "censored" into thinking like we do. If my kid wants to read "Mein Kampf", I won't forbid it to him. I will, however, make sure he has access to counterpoint arguments and will sit down to discuss it with him.

Re:So What?

[dargaud]

I'd be pretty ticked if my kid brought home some of the books from that list from school

I was staying at some friends' place recently when their 5yo brought back home a graphic book about sex: "Mummy, I don't understand all the drawings, can you explain them to me ?". After a few akward seconds she started explaining every page in great details. And acurately too, as much as I can tell on that given subject. I'm not sure he really followed though.

Re:So What?

[Fjornir]

Have you ever noticed that "award-winning" children's books almost ALWAYS suck?

Well, allow me to retort!

The Amazing Maurice and his Educated Rodents, Terry Pratchett.

The Outsiders, S.E. Hinton

A Wrinkle in Time, Madeleine L'Engle

The Witches, Roald Dahl

And that's just what happens to be on my bookshelf. If I were to think harder I could think of many, many, many more titles that were award-winning and didn't suck.

But Bridge sucked ass.

Why Harry?

[BigHungryJoe]

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?

Re:Why Harry?

[nicolas.e]

I don't get The Giver being banned either. It was REQUIRED reading when I was in middle school, and then again in High School.

In fact, much of the required reading when I was in high school was on this list.

Re:Why Harry?

[Jhon]

And the opinion of "some Christian organizations" is impacting what's in a public school? (Maybe it's nothing new, but it still shouldn't be happening.)

Welcome to the unintended concequences of true 'democracy'. Communities which are populated mostly by people who find some material objectionable can try and often succeed in 'banning' such materials from public schools/libraries.

Such bannings are on a 'micro' level. You don't see such things occur at the 'macro' level as you see much more diverse 'value systems'.

Is this REALLY a bad thing? While personally, I don't like the idea -- I still think that local communities have the right to that kind of autonomy. I don't see it as a 1st ammendment issue as all those banned books are still available -- just no public moneies are spent on them.

Re:Why Harry?

[Mr. Slippery]

In my mind those are two entirely different religions

It's not just in your mind. Wicca just doesn't feature Satan as a character.

And Satanism itself isn't really what people think it is, it's just a sophmoric power philosophy. It actuall seems to me to be more closely related to Objectism and "libertarian capitalistism" than to Wicca...

Re:Why Harry?

[Brandybuck]

I used to work at a bookstore that occasionally sold "controversial" books. So let me tell you the difference between Christians and Muslems when it comes to sacrilege...

When we sold "Last Temptation of Christ, some Christians boycotted, some urged others to boycott, and some wrote letters to the newspapers. The author never had his life threatened. When we sold "Satanic Verses", Muslems threatened us with bombings and death. The author of the book actually had to go into hiding, and is still there today. A former peace activist and singer, Cat Stevens, even agreed with the death threat.

I just don't think the Christian church has any right to control what's in a public school.

No Christian church has the right to control what's in a public state school. This is in stark contrast to Islamic control of schools in certain mideast nations.

Re:Why Harry?

[UnrepentantHarlequin]

The irony of this whole thing reminds me of something I said long ago to a fundamentalist who was giving me a rough time about playing D&D:

We play games about monsters and magic. You think it's all real. Now which one of us has the problems with reality, again?

She didn't have much to say after that.

Re:Why Harry?

[myowntrueself]

Satanism requires Christianity; because the Satan character only exists in Christian mythology.

Interestingly, Satan exists only in relatively recent Christian mythology as well, largely due to certain, rather late, translations of the bible.

Judaism has nothing remotely resembling a devil character whatsoever (unless you count that thing (can't remember the name) who recounts to God all the wicked things you did when you are up for judgement).

Islam has a kind of satan like figure (Iblis or shaitan), but in essence this character is on the level of humans, not a fallen angel (its a Djinn; created by God from fire just as humans were created from clay).

Zoroastrianism has a devil like character, but its power and nature is exactly equal to that of the good god character.

The so-called 'pagan' religions of Europe had nothing like the Devil; for the most part they hac a trickster character (eg Loki). But that nothing like the Devil.

What I would like to know, mistranslations aside, is where did the modern Christian notion of the Devil come from? Did it arise out of the collective guilt complex of Christianity? Or was it deliberately concocted as a means of social control?

Because it (the devil) is a novel concept in the context of the mythologies of the regions which gave rise to Christianity.

I think that modern christianity needs a devil to keep its congregation under control.

Re:Why Harry?

[Jhon]

A donated book costs money. It costs the time to (A) accept the book (B) catalog it (C) store it

Let each community decide on what to spend it's public resources. If that's based on each communities 'standards', I don't have a problem with it so long as such 'banned books' are still easily available elsewhere and there's nothing preventing their publication.

Your argument suggests that a public school/library should be compelled to carry every book ever published and accept every book donated. That doesn't sound reasonable to me.

Re:Why Harry?

[BandwidthHog]

Christianity isn't mythology

How's 'superstition' work for ya, then?

banning

[BoldAC]

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

Re:banning

[Ranger96]

So, when your employer tells you to not do something in terms of your job duties, are you a 'wimp' if you don't fight it? Or do you prefer to keep your job?

Re:banning

[NoMercy]

Lot better than in the UK, the national criculum has seen to that, all schools no matter where they are or who there teaching, teach the same stuff, so we all read Of Mice and Men, and we all do Macbeth in drama, we all study X in science...

It does mean everyone gets an equal footing, and the bad teachers don't slack off and just not teach anything but it does get increadably boring after reading the 40th poem of the NEAB Anthology.

Re:banning

[VendettaMF]

Dude,
Godwins law is:
"As a thread continues the probability of someone making a Nazi/Hitler reference/comparisson tends towards 1".

The only way to violate this law is to have an infinitely long discussion thread with no refences to Hitler or the Nazi regime. As this is impossible it becomes clear that there is no possible means to violate Godwins law.

Note also that Godwins law makes no judgements on the matter of the correctness of such a posting. It merely points out that it will eventually occur.

And for the pedants, yes, its a paraphrase, yes I could probably have googled for the exact wording, yes, such a search would have taken less time than this note to pedants, but strict adherance to exact wording is just one more element of fascist control.

Re:banning

[Java Ape]

Sadly, the life a teacher is not all roses. Many years ago, before I became a nerd, I took a job as a school teacher. My parents were both teachers, and I thought it a nobel and proud profession, despite the long hours and low pay.

I was trying to support a wife and three children on a teacher's salary, and had the sword of student debt suspended over my head. Some weeks after accepting the job, and moving to a new town, the principal called me in, and told me I would be teaching evolution and sex education. I was told that I was required to follow the district curriculum in these areas, and any deviatiation from the party line would be considered grounds for immediate dismissal. With a sinking feeling, I asked what the official curriculum would be. As expected it was a watered-down, "don't offend anyone, for any reason" curriculum with completely ignored all scientific evidence in favor of feel-good pablum and politically-correct platitudes.

I told the principal that this curriculum was laughable, I might as well teach Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. Not an eyelash blinked. Dead serious "Mr. Briggs, you are apparently under the impression that the science curriculum is as important as the socalization of our students. Your job is to assist the school is producing good citizens, subject area mastery is a secondary and far lesser consideration".

That was Pasco, WA 1994. I desperately needed the job. I swallowed my principles, and taught what I was told, knowing that the principal was using the classroom speaker system to monitor the content of my teaching. I left the teaching field that year, and have never gone back - there is no honor to be gained on that battlefield.

The teacher's can't fight, and have no hope of winning -- those who would fight are dismissed, those who remain offer up their intellecutal integrity upon the alter of polical correctness, in order to avoid legal entanglements for the administration.

So sad.....

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

The Anarchist's Cookbook doesn't even make the list... I mean, is all this stuff really that dangerous?

Re:Waldo

[M. Silver]

Perhaps someone who's read the article (it's loading in another tab, but I'm not holding my breath) can say for sure, but my best guess would be that the ban list must include books that are not "banned" so much as "excluded by policy," perhaps in this case because "Every time we buy a Waldo book, some smart aleck has to go through and circle Waldo on each page, so we should stop wasting our money on them."

Or some such.

It's *still* loading, though.

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck are you smoking?

You understand the reason for banning American Psycho from a school library, but you don't understand the point of banning a book full of madonna naked and in bondage gear, whipping men and engaging in various sexual acts with other men and women, often in public? Do you really think that's appropriate for school?

And "is this to protect the children or something?". -- Why, yes. Uh... Why else do you think people don't allow certain books in school libraries? Who the fuck else would they be protecting? I sure as fuck know my 86 year old grandmother isn't walking down to the local school and sitting in the tiny chairs reading books in their library.

Is this the most important information?

[Phanatic1a]

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.

Pft, whimpy stuff

[u-238]

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.

Re:Pft, whimpy stuff

[Hockney Twang]

I agree, as Voltaire may or may not have said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Re:Pft, whimpy stuff

[linzeal]

I've met two Israeli famlies and numerous Israeli individuals over the years and the majority of their beliefs are so stained by delusions of grandeur (even if they would not admit being a orthodox, zionists or the like) that it is almost impossible to have a civil convesation with them about the middle east. However, I have met a smaller number of arabic people and a few palestinians and on the whole they have a much more 'worldly' view of matters.

I have nothing against any religion but Israel reminds me of rich white South Afrikaners I've met more than 'holy people'.

Re:Pft, whimpy stuff

[BCoates]

But why would any Jews have survived after reaching the camps, let alone survived long enough to be rescued, if the camps were actually designed specifically to kill groups of people together and suddenly? Why would they build sneaky devices to kill people with when they could kill them simply by failing to provide adaquately for them?

The Nazi death machine was primarily limited by the rate they could cremate bodies, and secondarily by transportation. They switched over from simply mistreating the prisoners and waiting for them to die to transporting people to centralized death camps where they could be executed and creamated in batches because it was less expensive and labor intensive.

The Nizkor Project does and excellent job of explaining the practical justification for the strange seeming behavior and refuting the major misconceptions about the Holocaust.

Re:Pft, whimpy stuff

[Alaska Jack]

OK, this made me powerfully curious. Everyone knows Jews and Arabs are both Semites, and genetically quite similar. So what could have possibly made the journal first accept, then disavow, a paper that had conclusions that were already widely accepted?

The answers to both questions came from reading the article to which you linked. First, the article was published not because it revealed Jews and Arabs are genetically similar -- as I noted, everybody already knew that. It was published because it contained new research exploring a narrow question relating to "genetic variations in immune system genes among people in the Middle East. "

So why was it then disavowed? Because, as far as one can tell from the Guardian article, it drew conclusions in a politically inflammatory tone not appropriate for a scientific journal.

[I'm a journalist, and while we're on the topic, let me point out a part of the Guardian article that is definitely not journalism. The Guardian says: "In common with earlier studies, the team found no data to support the idea that Jewish people were genetically distinct from other people in the region. In doing so, the team's research challenges claims that Jews are a special, chosen people and that Judaism can only be inherited. "

Look, I'm not a Jew, but even I know that "Jewishness" is a complex mixture not only of ethinicity, but also religion and culture. So whose "claims" are we talking about? And on what basis are they made? The article doesn't say.]

So the article wasn't "banned" because of its content; it was disavowed because of its tone. To help illustrate, imagine if a KKK member had submitted a scientifically enlightening but ranting screed against blacks. Yes, this would be a more extreme case, but the point is that the article would be rejected for the same reason: not for the scholarship, but for the politically inflammatory tone.

Now, whether the journal editors were too sensitive to the particular tone of that article, that is an arguable matter. My only point is that this does not represent a serious case of censorship as one usually understands the term.

- Alaska Jack

Re:Pft, whimpy stuff

[EinarH]

On the first point you do have a point, but just becasue it's common doesn't make it anything more just. When the orignal poster talked about "more serious and interesting instences of banning" I think he refeered to the fact that although banning books from school-children is "bad" it's "worse" to destroy the books of a writer or censor the publication of a scientific article, both aimed at adults.

On the second point yes, the talk about "cencentration camps" was stupid, but that is not the point, If they first had reviewed it on a scientific basis and decided to publish it, they should not back off just because some of their readers dislike the wording in the paper. The paper was significant and important in the field and the "concentration camp talk" allthough stupid, was just a detail unrelated to the data, methods or conclusion. People have written far more controversial stuff than erroneously calling a refuge camp a concentartion camp without publishers pulling out.

And the "common with earlier studies" was the Observers remark, not the writer(s) or the publisher.

After the controversy Villena resubmitted the paper without the "concentration remarks", you can read in the Observer article how he agreed that they where irrellevant to the conclusion in the paper, and the publisher agreed to consider it for publication. But they never published it.
You can search their archives here and here but you won't find anything.
Even without the "concentration camp" remark they would not publish it. How do you explain that?

So much for "providing an exchange of information and ideas on structural polymorphism of HLA genes" .

A Wrinkle in Time

[Citizen_Kang]

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.

What books get banned over seas?

[Shivetya]

Out of curiosity what gets banned overseas? I would figure most NAZI related material isn't permitted in France, Germany, or similar countries.

My fav school read

[flyneye]

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.

Guttenberg links

[j1m 5n0w]

• 5 The adventures of Huckleberry Finn
• 84 The adventures of Tom Sawyer

Anyone see any more on that list that are public domain?

-jim

Teocracy?

[adolfojp]

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

Judy Blume?

[puzzled]

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
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 ... I never viewed her as a particularly controversial writer.

Can anyone shed some light on Judy Blume's presence on this list?

Fahrenheit 451...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Many of the books I had to read in

[glsunder]

The theme of my jr year in highschool english class was banned books. Every book we read was banned somewhere in the US. I respected that quite a bit. I'm not sure if the teacher could get away with that now though.

Read a banned book today?

[LinuxTard]

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.

Why?

[/Wegge]

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?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sexual prejudice, most likely.

Good, American young men are socially rewarded for sleeping around.
Good, American young women are still expected to be virgins when they are married.

Narnia is challenged too!

[Xtifr]

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! :)

Not the most useful thing...

[BoneFlower]

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.

Re:Wow. Interesting bias

[praksys]

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.

Re:Waldo

[Deadstick]

That brings to mind a vaguely similar series of books: Stephen Biesty's Amazing Cross Sections, which show cutaway views of all manner of engineering works: pyramids, ships of all eras, trains, skyscrapers, on and on...they're very minutely detailed, and in almost every one, there's a tiny little person somewhere taking a dump. (In the case of Lord Nelson's Victory, there's a whole line of guys waiting to use the two-hole head.)

Not a lot of folks realize how meaningful that is: shit was the very first engineering challenge, and how we get rid of it speaks volumes about where we are on the development timeline. And kids treat it very much like a Waldo book, examining all the details as they race to find the guy on the crapper.

rj

Re:topless sunbather

[Kell_pt]

I agree with Hogwash McFly in finding a relation between facing problems with information and good-sense, rather than attempting to supress them.
Maybe it's just that puritanism doesn't work. :) Do you recall seeing how the Administration recommends abstinence as means of stopping AIDS in African countries? Well, it's not just about that being hypocrite, that's a fine example of puritanism at the higher levels. Don't you find it at least a bit odd?! I mean... c'mon, abstinence? They don't have TVs or computers to spend their times in... ;) And the worst part is that I can imagine many people in most states in the US, in their homes watching TV and nodding in consent at those declarations of abstinence. Then they'll quietly change channel to the pr0n cable network.

Topless sunbathing is allowed in every beach in Portugal. Yet, it's a very conservative country, and quite religious (at least middle-age up). The thing is, it's a matter of personal choice and context. Respect for the other people and facing issues with information rather than attempting to hide'em, that plays a large role in the lack of sex-related crimes and a population with a healthier mind. Drinking is allowed to people above 16 that don't show signs of mental disorder, and although we have our share of people who exceed their account, most people are raised in the notion that there is a limit. It's a matter of teaching good-sense instead of forcing people to obey rules.

Another fine example - I've been to Marrocos, and that's a country where the majority follows the islamic religion. I felt ashamed at how easily they meet foreigners and accept the difference in cultures. They'll make jokes about Allah showing us the way while we're there and will usually meet you with curiosity as opposed to the arrogance you'd find for being a foreigner in a more developed country. In comparison, in the US and in other more developed places, pre-conceptions and the belief that "we know best"... well... you know where this is going, and I don't want to be moderated as a troll. :)

Cheers.

Re:That's a tad harsh.

[Krach42]

I've looked at their site. I find no list of banned books, only a list of challenged books.

Please provide a direct link to a truely banned book, and then I will begin actually considering your usage of challenged/banned vs just plain "banned".