Slashdot Mirror
Libraries Release Most-Censored Books List
destinyland writes "The American Library Association released this year's list of the most-frequently censored books. (Included in the top 10 are two best-selling novels — Twilight and The Hunger Games — as well as Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.) The annual list celebrates 'the freedom to read and the importance of the First Amendment,' according to the library association, highlighting 'the benefits of free and open access to information while drawing attention to the harms of censorship.' Interestingly, seven of the ten most-censored books are now available on Amazon's Kindle — more than twice as many as last year."
This week is banned books week. Celebrate (?) by reading a banned book - say no to censorship :)
In this age of hyperbole, where everything is worked up to be a huge scandal (Obama is the antichrist, Bush is Hitler, and social security is a Ponzi scheme), it's worth mentioning that censorship here is not government censorship, it means someone decided to remove that book from their library. All these materials are easily available elsewhere.
And frankly, if they're going to remove something from their library, Twilight is a great choice. Bravo, friends, bravo.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
...the US Constitution.
"The illegal we can do right now; the unconstitutional will take a little longer." --Henry Kissinger
It's been a while since I read it - what is it exactly that people object to in Brave New World?
At worst, I remember it being a bit preachy.
sic transit gloria mundi
It amazes me that books like these are censored while the Bible, which tell Christians to kill non-believers, is allowed.
There you go, I fixed that for you.
...it reads like a must-not-read for the christian right... christians have a messiah too.. like the nazi cult...
The list is about "challenged" books, not about them being censored. Please RTFA!
Sig?
It amazes me that books like these are censored while the Qur'an and Hadith, which tell Muslims to subdue or kill non-Muslims to enter paradise, is allowed.
It amazes me that books like these are censored while the Bible, which tell Christians to kill non-believers, is allowed.
There you go, I fixed that
for you.
The point still stands.
-- The Internet is a too slow way of doing things, you'd never do without it.
Or the bible for that matter which says that selling a disobedient child into slavery is a good deal. Or fathering 2 separate warring peoples with your daughters is a virtuous thing. Or that wearing two different types of fabric in the same outfit is "an abomination"
Does anyone else find it a tad ironic that 1984 is among the books "censored"? Maybe they should remove Fahrenheit 451 as well. :)
I think they tried to censor the bad writing, but the book came out empty.
heya,
Err, which version of the Bible are you reading...?
I'm fairly sure the bible never commands anybody to kill non-believers. In fact, last time I checked, it stated quite unequivocally "Thou shalt not murder". (Exodus 20:13). Note that it says murder, not kill (http://people.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/001102_ThouShaltNotMurder.html).
The giving/taking of life is God's alone to command - and barring some explicit command from him (as happened in the OT), to take a life is considered by most Christians to be tantamount to blasphemy and trying to supplant God's role.
So sorry, but your post is really full of ignorance.
Cheers,
Victor
The article lists the most *challenged* books. Challenging a book doesn't result in it being censored. The title of the article is incredibly misleading.
Move sig!
I question the claim that these parents are being protective of their children. I think they are doing nothing more than being bad parents by avoiding difficult but important conversations with their children.
I am reminded of the fact that people who never learn to swim are much more likely to drown. You might think that they don't know how to swim, and so they will stay out of the water and be safer that way. The real world doesn't work that way.
the article said:
"majority of challenges were initiated by parents (almost exactly 48%),"
(Maybe they meant 'the most frequent source of challenges')
>I'm fairly sure the bible never commands anybody to kill non-believers
You immediately contradict yourself:
>and barring some explicit command from him (as happened in the OT),
All I see is up to 2010.
Did I go back in time without realizing it? If so get out of Northern Japan early next year.
I've read the Bible a couple times, it doesn't say that.
God does command the Israelites to kill certain people (for example the inhabitants of Jericho) based on their practices which it claims are an abomination to God. Whether or not they are believers doesn't enter into it.
Nevertheless, these verses are largely censored in churches. Not so much because preachers want to denigrate them, but because preachers are generally a bunch of spineless cowards who want to avoid difficult conversations that might hurt the profitability of their churches.
The article notes that these are books challenged and requested removal in public or school libraries. So I think you're going to see a bias towards books for teenagers which adults feel are inappropriate for their dear children: more emphasis on requests for censorship because of rude words, sex scenes and unconventional ideas than because of religious thought.
I can see conservative parents getting upset about a whole range of exciting contemporary teenage literature while I would imagine only the most radically conservative are going to get upset about school libraries stock religious works, they'll more likely accept the concept of teaching comparative religion.
My guess is all the world's religious works have some pretty horrific sections, you might be upset about the Qur'an but everybody here at slashdot loves the way the Lego Bible picks out the extreme sections of the Christian holy books... I'd guess the Christians can give the Muslims a good run for their money in terms of tough edicts on people who don't follow the holy words... (stonings, killings, etc). Within a school or library context I don't think people blink when they see a shelf with the different world religions holy books next to each other (probably they yawn).
Alexie's book, written for teenagers, yet quite satisfying reading for adults, has a few references to jacking off as I recall. Any parent of teenagers who thinks this would be foreign territory to their spawn is delusional. But Nickel and Dimed?? Are the uber-capitalists now descending on libraries to challenge the sort of books that illustrate that the economic status-quo is not exactly peachy for everyone?
The man who dies rich dies disgraced. -- Andrew Carnegie
heya,
Every time this comes up, all these people come out of the woodwork, trying to wave about their "knowledge" of the bible.
Please cite your references for any of the previous wild claims. I'd be quite curious to see where you gathered any of this knowledge. Cereal boxes? Overheard at the hairdresses? In the latest copy of E! Weekly?
The bible doesn't "support" slavery, not in the sense that it says slavery is a good thing. Slavery was a common feature of most cultures in the ancient world (Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Greek, Roman etc.) and a integral part of commerce, taxation and how people interacted. The Bible set strict controls around it (e.g. slaves were to be treated like extended family, they were not to be harmed, slaves were automatically freed after 7 years), but it didn't actually outright tell people to ignore the slavery that was around them.
The NT likewise set controls on slavery, and Christian owners were encouraged to free their servants. However, the Bible didn't tell people to order Christians to go demand non-Christians free their slaves. Ultimately, the Bible regarded regarded as all the same - "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28), in the sense that everybody was an equal brother in Christ.
So within Christian circles, slavery was pushed away, but they didn't go so far as to outright tell people to go against society and try to free people outside Christian circles.
This isn't that out of line with the rest of the NT - for example, when a Jew asks Jesus if he really had to pay taxes to Caesar (the Jews obviously weren't happy about being subjugated under the Romans), Jesus tells the Jew to give to Caesar what is his (the coins were stamped with Caesars likeness), and to give to God what was God's.
In the grand scheme of things, things like taxes weren't important, but what mattered was how you served God - since ultimately, for a Christian, this would all come to pass, and what really counted was your spiritual life.
And this is all ignoring the Christian inspiration behind the abolitionists of the 1800's, like William Wilberforce, who used the verses above as well as others to try to push people around them to all abolish slavery.
Regarding the daughters thing, I'm not sure what your source for this, but it sounds like some cute soundbyte trotted out by atheists to justify why they haven't seriously considered spiritual things.
Finally, the wearing two fabrics - off the top of my head, that sounds like Deuteronomy. God set down controls for his people within a specific context - to set his people apart. It sounds strange, but it was part of God's grand plan (don't ask me, lol, God asked for a lot of weird things in those days, which ultimately actually ended up being quite smart).
Also, you won't see any Christians these days refer to these clothes? Ever wonder why? =). You should ask them.
Cheers,
Victor
Am I reading this right? 8) Nickel and Dimed, by Barbara Ehrenreich? I know it get's bandied about politically, but why censor it? I read it and didn't find it objectionable. Anyone know why?
It's actually quite easy.
If some authority disaollows you from reading a certain work and removes said work everywhere in their area of influence (and maybe even puts some sort of punishment on creating, owning, reading, knowing, trading, .. this work), it's "censored".
If you confuse "censored" and "challenged" when submitting a slashdot article (your own TFA even says "challenged" for the love of everything!) then you are "challenged".
I'm fairly sure the bible never commands anybody to kill non-believers.
Give Deu. 17:3-5 a quick read. You don't get much more explicit than that.
Honestly, I don't see how you could have missed it. Joshua slaughtered just about everyone in Canaan -- with more than a bit of divine assistance.
Required reading for internet skeptics
I'm curious as to why "Nickel and Dimed", an 8 year old book about how crappy it is to have a minimum wage job suddenly appeared on the list in 2010.
There is a quote in the Qur'an that says "fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them" which sound bad when taken out of context, but that is directed specifically against the Meccan Pagans of 1500 years ago (that were at war against Mohammad at the time of writing).
Likewise there are many questionable passages in the Bible. For example: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death"
These are still allowed because they are important historical documents that reflect the views of the time. Making similar statements today would be considered hate speech in most countries.
I do not have a problem with Twilight being censored. I don't know what the big deal is about.
I noticed that Harry Potter got challenged quite a bit but not any more!
My 7 year old was learning about HP at school, it was part of her school's curriculum last year used to encourage kids to think about fantasy situations to help with with their creative writing skills. After they'd all finished the book they also sat and watched the film to see how their interpretations differed from the film maker's. I can imagine the people who complained back in 2002 would have a fit if they knew what was happening my kid's school, LOL!
I love this bullshit! "Quick, hide it! If we hide enough bad stuff our kiddies will be safe forever!". Roll forward several years. "Oh no why are our kids so screwed up and can't cope?! Why do they feel the need to run, hide and perhaps even contemplate suicide to escape from the nasty things in life? Could it be that we hid so much from they they don't understand how to cope with horrible things in life?".
I guess there's people out there with too much fucking free time on their hands they feel the need to complain to public libraries and request books be taken off shelves!
Alright don't show an 8 year old a mangled corpse or pictures from a vivisection lab or slaughter house, but discussing persecution ( Kill a Mocking Bird ), censorship ( Farhenheit 451 ) , repression ( 1984 ), magic and witch-craft ( Harry Potter ) is not going to screw your kids up, denying them these things most likely will!
Yep - Lot. What a nice guy.
Here's a clip that I love to trot out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-2_LqOS3uo
Exodus 21 talks extensively about the buying, selling, and owning of slaves. Deuteronomy is indeed the source of the 2 fabrics comment. The reason you wont see christians follow it? Same as every other backwards and self-contradictory passage, they pick and choose what bits to believe.
There is a quote in the Qur'an that says "fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them" which sound bad when taken out of context, but that is directed specifically against the Meccan Pagans of 1500 years ago (that were at war against Mohammad at the time of writing).
Likewise there are many questionable passages in the Bible. For example: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death"
These are still allowed because they are important historical documents that reflect the views of the time. Making similar statements today would be considered hate speech in most countries.
It actually says "fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them" in several places, one of which the apologists always bring out because it is qualified by the context. In the other places it is a general command.
Note that I used 'over-protective'. It's probably just as well parents being lazy, but the end result is the same regardless.
Using your analogy: children won't learn to swim if their parents steer them away from water.
Those parents might do so because they think it is too risky. They might not want to put in the effort. They might not be able to swim themselves. Regardless of their reasons or how they explain their actions, they are indeed harming their children in the long run.
This sig is intentionally left blank
Maybe because liberals don't believe that censoring conservatives is justified and believe in respecting the views of others even if they disagree with them. Notably to respect their rights to air views even if you utterly despise those views.
The trouble with respecting the views of conservatives is that they'll never afford you the same courtesy.
Which, for at least Christian Conservatives go directly against their Jesus's direct order to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
How can the submitter use the word "censored" in the very hyperlink that points to a page containing a list of the most "challenged" books?
let me make this 100% clear:
THESE BOOKS ARE NOT, HAVE NOT, AND HAVE NEVER BEEN CENSORED.
Are there missing pages? black redaction lines? No.
This is a list of the most frequently challenged books that parents and fundamentalists complain about because they just happen to challenge their preconceptions or prejudices.
Which, for at least Christian Conservatives go directly against their Jesus's direct order to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
Not in Conservative Christian Logic. "If I were a homosexual/atheist/non-Christian I'd want someone to pressure me and make things difficult so that I would have no choice but to accept Jesus and be saved from the fires of hell."
Strange that there are no examples of right wing hate literature on the list. I mean with the country being overrun by freedom hating liberals and all, you would think the list would consist almost exclusivly of works by "conservative" authors.
Right, but you wouldn't expect the liberal media conspiracy to report that, now, would you?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
That was a real eye opener for me when I read it for the first time and I 'grew up' during the summer of love in '68.
Ahh, but surely you're aware that Christians follow the New Testament, in which Jesus states that he who is without sin should cast the first stone.
The Old Testament is full of obscure rules that have no bearing on the Christian faith. The Catechism is very, very clear on the taking of a life: you can only do it to protect against an attacker, and even then you should not be trying to kill, only disable.
Maybe because liberals don't believe that censoring conservatives is justified and believe in respecting the views of others even if they disagree with them. Notably to respect their rights to air views even if you utterly despise those views.
Right, because political correctness is the result of right wingers. David Horowitz is a complete chode, but there is an inkling of truth in his rants concerning university thought police.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
It's ironic that these books targeted for censorship are available for the Kindle, given the fact that Amazon engages in censorship of the Kindle store.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
not a iota or a dot will go away [from OT] before the world ends * Matthew 5:18-19
not a single letter of the OT can be invalid * Luke 16:17
all scripture counts * 2 Timothy 3:16
it is not up to personal interpretation * 2 Peter 20-21
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Seriously, we seem to be constantly under the impression that somehow, if we don't expose kids at all human sexuality, then somehow they won't become sexual. IE somehow readings lists can trump millions of years of evolution...
:P
Here's a hint, the only kids interested in reading about "orgy porgy" are probably the only ones not actually recreating it
Monstar L
Ahh, but surely you're aware that Christians follow the New Testament, in which Jesus states that he who is without sin should cast the first stone.
Since the point was about censoring the book, it's not relevant which page it's on.
Oh right. Because suggesting that we protect vulnerable communities with sensitive speech is the same as demanding viewpoints you dislike be kept from others at gunpoint
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Regardless, the Old Testament is still *in the bible* no? The contents of books is what is relevant to this discussion, not which parts of the bible Christians choose to selectively follow.
Jesus worked on the Sabbath. He associated with sinners. He didn't fast at all the appointed times. The OT is still around, and important for historical reasons, but Jesus repeatedly made clear that the rules were changing.
>Not in Conservative Christian Logic. "If I were a homosexual/atheist/non-Christian I'd want someone to pressure me and make things difficult so that I would have no choice but to accept Jesus and be saved from the fires of hell."
Which is pretty flawed logic. A much more valid version would be: "If I lived in a muslim/atheist/budhist nation, I would like them to allow me to practice my beliefs freely without persecution or pressure. Therefore in the nation my faith rules I should treat those with different beliefs with the same courtesy."
This applies just as much to believes which are in fact biological realities such as "I am gay".
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
The original statement was that Christians are commanded to kill non-believers. This is false. It might command Jews to kill...
4,660: Registered challenges to books since the beginning of the century. .0000015%, of the population is responsible for
311,800,000: Approximate population of the United States in 2011.
So, 1.49454779e-5, or
the "Frequently challenged books of the 21st century" list.
It's mind boggling that so few could affect the lives, or get the attention
of, so many.
Welcome to the era of rule by the lunatic fringe.
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
That is like saying slavery is legal because the original constitution allows it. Yeah if you ignore the 13th and 14th amendment.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Let's do a simple search for that, shall we?
Google 'killing bible' and click a link. I'd say any link, but why not click the first?
Murder in the Bible
Read and weep...
--frank[at]unternet.org
"I'm fairly sure the bible never commands anybody to kill non-believers."
If you claim to be a Christian, you really should be more certain than this. In fact, I've found that most Christians have never even bothered to read most of the book that they profess to be The Word Of God. It's a bit like signing a contract that you haven't read... but this is a contract for your eternal soul.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
this list is basically one of the public's complaints against books, not an actual list of censorship
Which is really ironic.
You see, there's an endocrinologist I know who makes a nice living giving normal upper middle class kids growth hormone because their parents are concerned that their son will be under six feet when he finishes growing. Why, a young man who looked like he was going to peek at 5' 9" was given hormones at the insistence of his parents.
Brave New World - we're already there. I guess parents don't want it shoved in their faces. I don't have a problem with it - tall (and good looking) people have an edge in this society and if a parent can do something to improve their kid's chances, I say go for it.
It is interesting, the whole "censorship" thing, in the end though as the years tick by we seem to find ourselves laughing a bit at books that had been banned in the past (I note with intrigue that a lot of the books on the list were actually on my school study list for "English" )
We recently had a book that we submitted banned by Amazon, ripped apart by B&N (but still there), rejected by Kobo and a few other distributors due to it being "offensive" because of its intense sexual nature and the context. That said, we're not entirely surprised, however on Goodreads we're picking up nice 5-star reviews and a good dosage of 4 & 5 star reviews elsewhere around the net.
Fortunately in this *day and age*, we can just sell it direct on eBooks :)
I think the ALA made a mistake - Twilight was listed as number 10, not number 1.
You heard that on Fox news, right?
My point was not to defend hate speech against pagans, but rather to point out that both the Qur'an and the Bible are historical documents that contain antiquated views.
Non-believers and animals are often not considered as supposed to belong to that non murder-able group.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
The most common reason for the basis of the challenges is the poem “Ice Capades” which describes how Sophie is fascinated by her breasts’ reaction to a cold window pane
Really? Show me the library that did this. (bet you can't)
Go to your school's library and you will find that it is rarely available. You can't donate one. You can't check one out.
The Christian faith doesn't "rule" America, last I heard.
it's worth mentioning that censorship here is not government censorship, it means someone decided to remove that book from their library. All these materials are easily available elsewhere.
Not unless the child in question has a ride to said "elsewhere".
"This action has been cited as one of the worst examples of censorship in U.S. history." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Reich#1956:_Book_burning
You heard that on Fox news, right?
No, I read the Qur'an. Something that a lot of people who say "it doesn't say that" haven't
It would be nice if they listed the challenges specific to each book.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Really? Show me the library that did this. (bet you can't)
fair cop - I just realised that these are only books that people companied about.
Aldous Huxley's Brave New World is also available on-line for free ... unless, that is, you have to go through a censoring web proxy.
I recommend it. It is not that long. It is interesting how much in sci-fi movies and literature that has been influenced by it.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
Jesus fulfilled the law of the OT. Don't forget the Israelites were the intended audience of the OT. Christians don't believe the OT is null and void, but that Jesus fulfilled the old law through his teachings and authority as the Son of God. Observant Jews still follow the OT laws because they don't view Christ as do Christians. Jesus, a Jew himself, was clear on the point of fulfillment:
Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, "Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath." He said to them, "Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. And if you had known what this means, âI desire mercy, and not sacrifice,â(TM) you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is lord of the Sabbath." (Matt. 12:1-8)
Right. But you realize that when you make statements such as "the phrase X appears more than once in text Y" it takes less than 10 seconds for anyone with Internet access prove you wrong?
It is incredibly telling and depressing that "And Tango makes Three" is the number one most challenged book. From the summary of the book: "At New York City's Central Park Zoo, two male penguins fall in love and start a family by taking turns sitting on an abandoned egg until it hatches." Wow... This country has a long way to go on the way for tolerance.
Everybody complaining about the headline using the wrong word is absolutely right, but missing the point.
These aren't people who don't want their own kids reading something they don't like. A parent has full power to deal with that at home.
These are people complaining that other people's kids are reading things they personally don't want them to. Note that just about every "library" in the USA is run by some arm of the government. So if the librariies in question were to act on any of these complaints, it most certianly would constitute government censorship, and thus these are all attempts to get the government to censor materials some person doesn't agree with other people having free access to.
Right. But you realize that when you make statements such as "the phrase X appears more than once in text Y" it takes less than 10 seconds for anyone with Internet access prove you wrong?
And about two minutes to direct you to 4.89 and 9.5.
Right. But you realize that when you make statements such as "the phrase X appears more than once in text Y" it takes less than 10 seconds for anyone with Internet access prove you wrong?
And about two minutes to direct you to 4.89 and 9.5.
Incidentally It always shows the true nature of Islam that apologists will come on and lie saying "it doesn't appear more than once" in the hope that people won't check themselves. This is why Muslims always say "read the Quran, its a book of peace", because they assume that most people won't. Do as I did - call their bluff and read it.
9.5 is the one I quoted.
4.89 does not call for slaying Pagans. It calls for killing Hypocrites. A different thing entirely. It also only calls for killing the Hypocrites when they side with the Pagans of Mecca. Certainly not a "general command".
Look at the bottom of your banknotes. Which "God" you think they are talking about ?
The faith may not be the official government but I'm not aware of a single person in that government who does not at least CLAIM to subscribe to this faith - nor do I think any person who doesn't would have the slightest chance at being elected there.
Face it, the Christian faith IS the de-facto rulers of America even if not the de-jure.
That said - I was merely talking about majority population - not political setup. Most "Budhist" nations are not ruled by the Budhist faith either - they are merely countries where Budhists are the majority (and ergo - a non-Budhist would have a very hard time getting elected there).
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
9.5 is the one I quoted.
4.89 does not call for slaying Pagans. It calls for killing Hypocrites. A different thing entirely. It also only calls for killing the Hypocrites when they side with the Pagans of Mecca. Certainly not a "general command".
Read the commentary:
However, since a verse being revealed with respect to a specific event does not mean that it is restricted to that event, the Qur'n is here presenting a typical hypocrisy.
This means anyone who presents their religion as Islam or in any way equivalent. It is used today to justify killing the Ahmadiyya Muslims and people who claim that there is truth in all religions.
Why would this book be challenged by somebody to be removed from a library. I have read this book recently. In it, the author goes undercover and works as non-skilled worker in various professions in different parts of united states (Key west, Maine and Minnesota). The book is about observations of various difficulties including renting, finding a job etc. Just does not make any sense.
As the parent references Exodus, it wouldn't appear that he feels the same way.
Required reading for internet skeptics
The original statement was that Christians are commanded to kill non-believers. This is false. It might command Jews to kill...
You can't just ignore all the bits in the Bbile (Old or New Testament) that get in the way of your argument. The only reason that Jesus is special is that he's (supposedly) the son of the God of the Old Testament.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Excellent. The Christians will just point out that all that shit is in the Old Testament and none of the quotes are by Jesus, as though somehow Christianity is just about the words of Jesus himself, with no background or context whatsoever.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I read "Nickel and Dimed" in undergrad. I found it insightful. I had no idea it was so hated and/or feared by any establishment. I think I'll read it again since it's still on my book shelf.
I love librarians-- the rebellious rabble-rouses!
The trouble with respecting the views of conservatives is that they'll never afford you the same courtesy.
That's a pretty damn general statement. Keep in mind that a big chunk of conservatives are highly libertarian, and probably support free speech more than anybody. It also ignores the highly intolerant portion of the left, who call for rules against certain types of 'hate' speech. Be more specific with your criticisms.
I have decided to remove the tax code from my library.
These are lists of books that were most frequently the target of a complaint.
I would hope that a complaint does not automatically lead to censorship.
You know, the world is full of complainers. Some people have nothing better to do than to get outraged at books and lodge complaints with a library.
For the most part, these should go straight to the trash.
Anyone complaining about classic literature is a certified twit.
wait a second isn't "christian Logic" an oxymron?
Looking at the list from 2003, I am surprised to see one "nonfiction" book: Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture, by Michael Bellesiles. That book got a lot of good press, but then became the only book ever to have a Bancroft Prize revoked after it turned out the author basically made the whole thing up. Most of the books make the list because religious groups want to get rid of books with sex, drugs, etc., but it looks like this book was opposed because it was factually incorrect, (and "scholarly dishonest" - Bellesiles had to leave Emory University after his book came under scrutiny). That the book was very much opposed to the gun lobby didn't help. I'll admit that I had a copy - but a little research quickly shows how worthless it is. I am normally not in favor of burning books, but that trash should never have been published as nonfiction.
Twilight is on the list and it is widely criticized by left-wingers as right wing propaganda, as the main female character tries to make her husband happy, getting married young is considered important, and the characters refuse to have sex until marriage. While it's not really right wing hate literature, from the way the left talks about it, you'd think it's right wing Mormon propaganda that contributes to the oppression of women everywhere.
and barring some explicit command from him (as happened in the OT), to take a life is considered by most Christians to be tantamount to blasphemy and trying to supplant God's role.
Actually, both Catholics and Orthodox (which together constitute the majority of Christians) believe that taking a life is perfectly valid and justified in many contexts - e.g. death penalty for some crimes, when it is applied by the state according to a just law; or killing an enemy in a just war (e.g. when it's defensive); or, more broadly, self-defense or defense of others, where it is the only way to stop the attacker.
I don't know much about doctrinal support for it among Protestants, but, given that they fought wars too, and given that most religious people in U.S. tend to be in favor of the 2nd Amendment, I suspect the things are not all that different there.
So the Ten Commandments are not binding, then?
Of course, nobody is mentioning Holocaust revisionists books, which are censored while authors are being harassed, sued, thrown in jail or even killed for their writings.
>That's a pretty damn general statement. Keep in mind that a big chunk of conservatives are highly libertarian, and probably support free speech more than anybody. It also ignores the highly intolerant portion of the left, who call for rules against certain types of 'hate' speech. Be more specific with your criticisms.
Right because I was clearly talking about fiscal conservatives... oh wait - no I was very obviously talking about social conservatives. By definition a social conservative is somebody who believes the state should enforce morality as legality.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
I just don't get why so many parent think it's a smart thing to shield their kids (and young adults) completely from the real world. The culture shock when they suddenly find themselves in the middle of it is so much greater, complete with greater potential of it overwhelming the kids to such a degree that they get seriously hurt (and even lead to suicide).
Okay, so some of the parents really are stupid but most should know better. Their kids doesn't become homosexual from reading about it, nor do they become racists from reading the Color Purple, Tom Sawyer or similar, or vampires/pagans from reading Twilight or similar. But they're "shielding" the kids, probably with the best of intentions, but unavoidably cause more harm than good. We - as a society - simply shouldn't let them censor what's available for the kids to read.
Perhaps the parents simply fear their kids becoming smarter than the parents on an intellectual level., perhaps even questioning some of the dogmas in the family and their views on the world. A generation of kids that are able to think for themselves and thus most likely questioning what the parents believe... Scary!
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
The ALA top 10 challenged book list is faked to promote the political interests of the ALA. For evidence, I recorded "banned" author #9 on the list essentially saying other books where challenged more than hers. See for yourself: http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2011/09/banned-books-week-is-gay-promotion.html
Yes, words are dangerous, especially when its recorded that the ALA faked it annual challenged book list of 2010. I'll bet the other lists from previous years are similarly stacked.