Nasa / Space

I read banned books

Bradbury, Vonnegut, and Huxley all have titles on the banned books list. See which titles are on the 2009 list of banned and challenged books.

Did you know that it's Banned Books Week (September 26-October 3, 2009)? The banning of books is a topic that really makes me angry. In my opinion, anything worth reading is on the challenged and banned books list.

Challenged and banned books

Lauren Davis wrote an article last year for io9 entitled, Scifi Books that Have Been Banned in the Twenty-First Century; from the titles, it looks more like a required reading list than a banned books list:

One of the banned books in her article that should be of particular interest to science-fiction fans is Fahrenheit 451. I feel that it's ironic and somewhat recursive to ban a book about banning books. I would also like to note that I've read the books by Bradbury, Huxley, Vonnegut, and Pilkey. Yes, reading Captain Underpants doesn't make me a bad person.

This year's list of banned and challenged books features some rather interesting titles:

Some of the themes in the new additions include the following topics:

  • Supernatural (Barron, Colfer, Sebold, Maguire, Meyers, Nixon, and Pullman).
  • America is involved in a war that isn't going well (Heinlein).
  • Disagrees with a fictional religion (Pullman).
  • The book is being made or has been made into a motion picture (Sebold, Meyers, and Pullman).

Taking a stand

It is an illusion that science fiction and fantasy authors are able to make social commentary without being noticed by those who don't value any opinion beyond their own. To some, the limitations to free speech extend beyond "shouting fire in a crowded theater " to expressing any concept that conflicts with their beliefs.

I have decided to take a stand against the banning of books. I will read whatever I want and continue to donate books to my local library. Will you do the same?

106 comments
NotSoChiGuy
NotSoChiGuy

...that the louder some whackadoodle group protests against a book/show/movie or what have you, the more popular said item becomes. So, in that vein, I support the nimrods who want to ban these pieces of literature. It will almost surely lead to higher sales & readership, which is good for the economy, and good for the mind.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

Sometimes the content is extremely offensive. Lets start with all the Dune books written by Anderson and Not the real Herbert. Add in the Da Vinci code, because it's sh1t...

JamesRL
JamesRL

Having read and enjoyed most of these books, I do think that in general the practise of banning books from public institutions is wrong. But I understand why a Catholic school board would not want the Golden Compass series on its shelves - the book is clearly anti Catholic. But the actions of the school board don't stop Catholics from finding it elsewhere and reading it, they just don't condone it. As for Captain Underpants, my kids school promoted these books as a way to get more young boys to read, and it worked. James

endisbegun
endisbegun

wow thats crazy, Ive read the giver, slaughterhouse 5, and brave new world...what the heck is so wrong about them that they need to be banned? thats insane! All for banning twilight though, lol seriously though, this is some crazy bs

boxfiddler
boxfiddler

Weak minds ban books. My shelves are filled with banned books. So bite me. (You know who you are.)

santeewelding
santeewelding

With torches and tambourines, I shot them. Went back inside to continue reading. After I shot up banned drugs.

JackOfAllTech
JackOfAllTech

Although children should be shielded from things they aren't capable of handling, it's the parents that should be doing that (not including illegal material). I've always encouraged my children to read anything appropriate for their age / maturity even if they disagree with it. How else can we understand why we believe what we believe or have meaningful, rational discussions with others? I don't believe there is any other life 'out there' but that doesn't stop me from enjoying SF. I don't believe there are elves, fairies, goblins, dwarves, or wizards but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy Fantasy - the Lord of the Rings series is my all-time favorite. Pushing our muscles against resistance makes them stronger. Pushing our minds against oppossing ideas make them stronger also.

Ed Woychowsky
Ed Woychowsky

To write something that offends the political right. Examples of this are Charlies Darwin's On the Origin of Species the Constitution of the United States.

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

bigsibling
bigsibling

At least here in the US, while everyone has the right to speech, nobody has the right to not be offended. I spit my mouthful of coffee all over my keyboard when I read that "Fahrenheit 451" was on the banned books list - what a hoot!

DMambo
DMambo

After the 5th or 6th installment, I had to ban myself from paying for more CU books. They just got too stupid. But my kids loved them at the time. They were sold at the school bookmobile sales, so that's more or less an endorsement rather than a ban.

Ed Woychowsky
Ed Woychowsky

I had a professor who regularly made a habit of recommending banned books. At his suggestion I read Michael Morcock's Behold the Man, Normal Spinrad's The Iron Dream and Anne McCaffery's Pern Series. They were all pretty good reading.

dcolbert
dcolbert

Not where I thought you were going to go with it, and altogether more satisfying because of the surprise ending. Great reading, approaching the beauty of a well composed haiku - it should be banned immediately. Possibly even printed out, so that it can symbolically be burned. :)

dawgit
dawgit

Pogo was right. (unfortunately) Unbelievable in the 21st century in what is supposed to be the most enlightened country, that this even happens. :0 Sick X-( and Sad :_|

Breezer85
Breezer85

You people have gone completely off your rocker! The subject is 'Banned Books' not religious/non-religious beliefs! As per topic my view is read what you want to read, if you're offended by it don't read it again and keep your opinions to youself! As per religious/non-religious topic my view is You're Born, You Live, You Die! No point in stressing over what to believe and what not!

iroman
iroman

what we want to read, and form our own opinion, that, either good or bad, we should not have the power to force upon any other adult. In short - don't like, don't read... But no one should limit my choices... Censorship does not fit in a democratic world. Yep - I will always be a dreamer ;)

dcolbert
dcolbert

JackOfAllTech, you make a great point, although inadvertently, I think when you make the disclaimer "(not including illegal material)". At what point should literature become "illegal"? Because this is synonymous with "banned". Beyond literature, are there TEXTS that should be illegal? Encyclopediac, knowledge containing texts, like the Anarchist's Cookbook? Should it be illegal to have texts that describe and teach how to perform illegal acts? Or should knowledge be free - *all* knowledge? Because to one person, having a document that describes how to make a match-head pipe bomb is simply useful information to know. For another person, it is a way to begin a campaign of terrorism from a hut in Montana. The *knowledge* isn't "illegal" or "wrong", it is how an individual person uses that knowledge. And once you start saying, "this is too dangerous for people to hear, to know, to see, and we need to protect people from this information" - you're headed down a road where eventually someone is saying, "Captain Underpants and the Adventures of Super Diaper Baby is potentially subversive literature and should be removed from the public eye". I mean, we all know the basic root example of when society feels an image should be illegal, but how quickly does that common ground dissolve? The Internet has blown the doors off the kinds of photographs and videos that are available to the general public. 30 years ago, it would have been incredibly difficult to find a video of someone being decapitated by an extremist terrorist. Today, 5 minutes with Google and any school kid can see this. In the past, Time magazine might publish carefully edited shots of a necklacing in South Africa (don't know what that means, consider yourself lucky, and take my advice and don't google for it). Today, you can certainly find shaky hand-cam video of far worse attrocities of man against mankind. Should this information be banned? Forbidden? If you seek out and view this kind of video - should you face criminal penalties? Don't we worry about the effect of millions of teenagers growing up, watching these kind of things, being desensitized? Is that enough justification to make it a crime? We broadcast news of a young Iranian women, her eyes rolling lifelessly to the side as blood spills from her mouth. No one is suppressing this information. But what happens when it is a young black women in Harlem that the NYPD has gunned down and the video is just as vivid? Then our authorities make the decision that this video is too graphic to be consumed by the general public. Hypothetically speaking. That is the risk here, that these standards are not applied equally and without bias. Two things that are really the SAME thing are not handled the same way - based on perspective. Fortunately, as far as this article goes, I'm thinking that these books aren't politically banned at a federal level, or probably even state level. These are unoffcial "bans" by unofficial organizations. The idea that a school district might ban "Catcher and the Rye" may not be the most reassuring thing in the world, but if you can take your kid down to Barnes and Noble and buy a copy and make them read it at home without any fear of prosecution - then it really isn't BANNED. To me, "banned books" implies armed agents of the state kicking in your doors at 3 in the morning and dragging you off to "re-education" camp. As fas as I know, that isn't happening anywhere in the United States or probably any other modern, western nation.

RookieTech
RookieTech

captain under pants in a long time i totally forgot that that was a book lol

aldisp
aldisp

Tried a web-search to find out whether banning of books is still practised and who is that responsible for the actions. I know perfectly well how this was done in the USSR ( I live in Latvia - that nationalist country that had a whole bunch of "bourgeois" authors that should have remained unknown to the younger generations). Could not find any links indicating directly the responsible party. Found information on the "Banned books week". No mention of "Fahrenheit 451" or the "Twilight" series. And a different aspect. Thinking of films: "Matrix" received a host of rather bad reviews. Was it because the film was bad or because the philosophy behind all those special effects was too dangerous for the status quo?

GSG
GSG

My parents did not limit or ban any books for me, and when the librarian had the nerve to tell mom that my reading material was inappropriate for my age, my mom told her that if I could read it and understand it, then it was appropriate. My reading material prompted interesting discussions with my parents when I was a kid, and did nothing to harm me. In fact, it helped me immensely. At age 10, I was reading Roots, Lord of the Rings, books by Asimov, Bradbury, McCaffrey and others. Now, at age noneofyourbusinessbuti'mover40, I find myself reading many books classified as young adult, and being impressed with the quality of the writing. I do believe that if parents have any qualms about their child reading "witchcraft" books, or books with subject matter that they feel may be controversial, then they have the right to censor their child. However, it's the parents' responsibility to read the books first and not tell anyone else that no one can read a book because they don't want their child to. That's exactly why I started reading Harry Potter. Someone tried to tell me that it was evil and should be banned. I went out that day and bought all of the books that were out at the time (4), and read every single one, and loved them. Someone can tell me what I can and can't read when they can bend over backwards and kiss their own backside.

david.tygel
david.tygel

Hey Joy of Sex & Joy of Gay Sex plus Teenage discovering sexuality is inappropriate at elementary level and joy of sex is adult pornography and should be limited to over 18

AttackComputerWhiz
AttackComputerWhiz

Ralph Reed's coalition is the worst of the groups that are trying to censor everyone's abiity to read material that might foster thought. They are the ones responsible for all the issues with TV and were the ones who got Bush to approve those silly new FCC rules. All based on loud complaints by a small religious cult whose members spend what seems like every waking moment watching TV and reading just to find something to b***h about... I let my kid read whatever interests her because, after all, it means she is reading. To tell a child words are bad reminds me of the old George Carlin routine: "There are no bad words. Bad thoughts, bad intentions, and...WORDS".

Kenone
Kenone

I just read "And Tango makes three" to the gandsons. No, I am not afraid that they'll catch "the gay". Ideas, even those with which you disagree are expansive, denying that other ideas even exist is a certain path to ignorance. The kids at Walt Whitman High are not allowed to read Walt Whitman.

BubbaGlock
BubbaGlock

Hey Ed, if you want to believe you evolved from an ape, that is your right and you can read Darwin all you want. But if I want to believe I was created by God and I want to read the Bible all I want, I have that right as well. When we both die and venture into eternity, we will see what belief is correct. If I am wrong, nothing lost, If you are wrong, well.........

TNT
TNT

He, Ed, do you know the complete title of Darwin's work, much less read it? "The Origin of the Species and the Preservation of the Favored Races". In it he argues that people of color are closer to our ape ancestors than white people. I'm not for banning anything (I prefer to change hearts and minds), but Darwin's work was offensive to people of intelligence on both sides of the aisle. As for the right not respecting the Constitution, I laugh and ridicule the assertion especially when the current powers that be seem to be doing their best to ignore it and in fact oppose it. Obama himself called it a constitution of "negative rights" that that should be modified.

robert.laterra.ctr
robert.laterra.ctr

Fortunately, my daughter's HS has not banned it. She read it and enjoyed it last year. While some material should only be read at the appropriate age, that's a decision parents should be making (although I do expect some input from schools. Wouldn't expect them to assign reading of any of the "Joy of Sex" books or the like). I appreciate that some may find certain books offensive. They can choose not to read them or not allow their kids to read them. Just don't force your values on me or mine.

Ed Woychowsky
Ed Woychowsky

I'm keeping count, that makes three since 2002. :)

JamesRL
JamesRL

I stopped reading them myself, it became too much of a retread, but like you kids, mine loved them. James

SKDTech
SKDTech

Good author, I very much enjoy the Eternal champion books and am trying to get the entire series into my library. I have read all of the Pern books written by Anne McCaffery and most of the rest of her writings. Try some Edgar Rice Burroughs when you get a chance.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

But here in the States, most attempts to ban books are made on "moral" grounds by those who consider themselves religious.

wyrwolf
wyrwolf

In the past, and present, there are books that are illegal to import and a few still illegal to sell...even in the West. It IS discreet, but seizures do still happen.

melias
melias

I do not remember the title of the book, but it explained in detail how to kill a person using various (and varied) methods. The Federal government went after the small publisher and forced them to stop publishing the book. Also, is the "Anarchists Cookbook" still out there and available for purchase?

Ed Woychowsky
Ed Woychowsky

The banning is accomplished by groups and individuals approaching schools and libraries and demanding that certain books are removed. If the books aren't removed they either sue or check-out the book and destroy it.

mendtodd
mendtodd

As long as I can remember, the quickest way to get me to read something was to label it..."naughty", "taboo", "banned". Still is!

rds
rds

I am religious and conservative but have enjoyed science fiction since jr high school. While the subject may not agree with my beliefs, I would be foolish not to know what others are thinking. Also, people with strong beliefs can enjoy many subjects. I've been a fan of these banned authors for 50 years.

johnnymike
johnnymike

I understand now. If we take away books that mention any controversial subject then our kids won't think or do these nasty things. It's great to understand that before there was TV, before there was radio, before there were magazines there were no controversies. No underage sex. No old men preying on children. No prostitution and no drug use. Boy what did god bring out when he gave us a mind and this mind created reading material? Bad, bad god.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

and get the Song of Solomon the heck out of there.

johnnymike
johnnymike

Why? If an elementary level means someone below the age of 12 then what could be happening in their world that would make them interested in reading this stuff? If you mean below the 6th grade level of education then you would have to ban a lot of Newspapers and Magazines that are written for the 4th and 5th grade level reading skills. So again I ask "WHY?".

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

In the UK they can legally have unhappy sex at sixteen, most start much earlier than that. Age of consent and majority are legal inventions to stop adults claiming consent from minors, they've nothing to do with biology. The idea that you give an 18 year old boy a book and after reading they'll suddenly discover a sexual urge is ridiculous, he's probably already fathered six kids and left a chain of unsatisfied girls about by then. Grow up.

Kenone
Kenone

"joy of sex is adult pornography"

Ed Woychowsky
Ed Woychowsky

Perhaps religous materials should be included in the ban as well. You know, wait until they are emotionally mature enough and therefore don't blindly follow others. Also, images of tortured individuals aren't good for young minds, therefore they shouldn't be exposed to them. Think of the children!

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

results so far: China - jury still out USSR - didn't seem to work Iran - jury still out Iraq - under revision and review At an organisational level, look at ones that get followers by claiming to be working for God but the leaders are only out for themselves - ones like: The PLO, Hamas, Communist Party, Socialist Party, political leaders of all shades.

BubbaGlock
BubbaGlock

The wisdom of man is foolishness with God.

martian
martian

This line of thought always reminds me of this quote from RAH's Lazarus Long: "History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it." Logic is definitely not for the sheep, uh, I mean, faint of heart... ;) Of course, the other one that automatically runs through my head is George Carlin's rant about the greatest bullshit story ever! Ttyl, Gary

Ed Woychowsky
Ed Woychowsky

If the bible is correct, then we each have the same potental as god. Let's gang-up on god and take over ourselves. Six billion to one, pretty good odds.

santeewelding
santeewelding

Just threw it in. In all matters you are, may I say, a sweet, sweet man. We are all in need of such. From a guy.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

I try not to waste on trivial matters.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Twit would probably have been more appropriate...

boxfiddler
boxfiddler

[i]p1ss off you self righteous git.[/i] :^0

boxfiddler
boxfiddler

extend well beyond what you posit. You quite left out that we're all figments of an imagination... Among many other things.

santeewelding
santeewelding

His was, "God loves you all the same." Which is usually enough to piss off someone like Dawkins, or, yourself, who scramble to no avail in countering that crap.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

Possible I unloaded on him because he came across as exactly the sort of christian I just can't stand. He'e welcome to correct my first impression, that's if he can type after wrenching his arm out patting himself on the back.....

santeewelding
santeewelding

Very tidy. Left no stone unturned, within his precept. Until you flat-out attack the precept without mercy. Frowned upon, here.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

to Heinlein's [i]Job[/i]? Nah, he'd just get confused...

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

We could both be wrong, perhaps the Muslim is right, the Bhuddist, the Hindu, the Sikh, the jewish, perhaps you are slightly but unfortunately wrong, and you should have picked russian orthodox. Sod it lets throw the Jedi, Baal, Mithras, Druidism , Wicca. Don't even try logic with me. You have faith you believe. I find christianity morally and ethically offensive, now p1ss off you self righteous git.

pdf6161
pdf6161

Tony, The possibilities are as follows: 1) You are right and death is just the end. In that case, I share your fate. 2) The Bible is right and there is judgment thereafter. In that case, those who follow the plan of the Bible (faith in Jesus) have a different fate from those who don't. If you continue your course, you and I would therefore have different outcomes. So if you are right, I don't have a choice. If I'm right, you have a choice. And it isn't between eternity with God and just the end. Rather, the choice is between eternity with God and eternity in anguish. If it turns out that I had no choice, I will never regret it because I'll never know. If it turns out that you had a choice, you'll regret it forever. --Paul

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

sit basking in God's eternal love forever and ever and ever and ever and ever surrounded by equally sad b'stards or just the end. Hard choice, Not....

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

believe it explains everything; and it clearly doesn't.

neilb
neilb

Race, as used by Darwin in Origin of Species, refers to varieties within ANY species, not to human races. It puts forward the simple idea that some variations in species that occur naturally survive in greater numbers. Darwin's work, I find, is generally only offensive to the unintelligent and ignorant. Origin of Species was published in 1859 and the majority of the content conceived and written much earlier in Darwin's life. In his attitude to Negroes and other races (humanity is not mentioned in Origin of Species), he followed the attitudes and beliefs of his time. At that time, your enlightened, Christian culture believed much the same to the extent that your Negroes were still enslaved. Slavery, by the way, was something that Darwin opposed vigorously all of his life. Yes, I HAVE read it. Several times.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

Makes you wonder how many more geniuses are hiden away in offices pencil pushing, because they don't believe in the current theory....

dave
dave

It was only a matter of time before the idea developed.

sboverie
sboverie

A few months ago, National Geographics had an issue that talked about Darwin and the theory of evolution. Darwin was actually a cleric and basically collected information and sent it to someone who was a scientist. Darwin wrote the theory long after the voyage in the Beagle. That said, the theory holds together well and explains some things that have been proven with other evidence. Joe Bob says check out the article.

Ed Woychowsky
Ed Woychowsky

Even a blind squirel occasionally finds a nut. :)

TNT
TNT

No, no striking of nerves, just saying that Darwin wasn't real much of a scientist. In fact, most everything he suggested is no longer held to be true except for the core idea that one species can eveolve into a completely distinct separate species. If the Scopes trial had gone the other way we might have actually been better off, not wasting time on foolish notions. Truth always has a way of making itself known sooner or later, and Darwin's work contained little, and possibly no truth.

Ed Woychowsky
Ed Woychowsky

We stand on the shoulders of those that have gone before us. Yes, they didn't get everything right, but nevertheless they tried to push back the darkness of ignorance. Did I strike a nerve?

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

also funding the thing that will find it intellectually or aesthetically pleasing. There's no way you can be artistic in any form without offending someone, you'd end up with nothing. Going down the don't offend the majority route, certainly hasn't been successful, becase it's always a minority deciding what is and isn't acceptable. I'd rather risk being offended, than to never be challenged. Let the censorship muppets out of their cage and they'll be up ladders censoring the roof of the Cistine Chapel....

dcolbert
dcolbert

Should a state, taxpayer funded Library purchase books that promote things that the general population that supports that library finds offensive? My daughter came home from school and told me that her teacher had told her "my truck was killing the world". I taught my daughter to say "Al Gore has a carbon footprint 30 times the size of the average American citizen" and sent her back to class the next day. That teacher would hardly make eye contact with me the rest of the year. When schools begin to teach philosophical ideologies that are not consistent with mine - then there is a problem. The Maplethorpe exhibts with homoerotic B&D pictures and the Piss Christ piece as federally funded art is another example of the problematic aspect of having a Federal or State authority take money away from citizens, then invest that money as that authority sees fit. I'm perhaps more progressive in that although I'm not fan of Maplethorpe's art - I'm ok with some of my taxpaying monies going to support his work. Inevitably, some of those funds will eventually go to support an artist I like, that fans of homoerotic B&D art and a crucifix in a beaker of urine will certainly find intolerable.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

In the UK, schools pulled Biggles from the shelves because it was imperialist. Don't even go no near the PC crowd who are still alive and well and many running TR. I wish they'd catch up, you want a book, just hit the major P2P networks you'll find it. Something like the Illiad might be hard to find, but the US arm manual on demolition techniques is everywhere....

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

so well publicised, so it got ignored as soon as the couple set up house together or got married. And controversies were resolved with firearms across the fence line.

JamesRL
JamesRL

In the 80s, Bob Guccione the publisher of Penthouse Magazine made a movie called "Caligula". It was half porn, half attempt at a serious movie. The title charecter was played by serious actor Malcolm McDowell. But it also had some gratuitous sex scenes. It was banned in Ontario. Being young (university student) and curious about the ban, I and some other poli sci students went across the bridge to Quebec, where it was playing in "mainstream" theatres. Surprisingly, we didn't mind the porn, but the gratuitous violence was over the top. There were a couple of scenes that just will not leave my memory. But of course we would not have gone to see it had it not been banned. James

MavMin2
MavMin2

While you have a point, there is a different between the description in a book and the graphic visual display that leaves nothing to the imagination.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

as part of my Ancient Lit class. Also read the Odyssey and numerous Roman plays. If staged true to the story, I don't think there's a one of them that could be done today without being considered pornographic by many.

Slvrknght
Slvrknght

A lot of people complain about violence on TV (a lot of them are Christian conservatives). I've asked them about the mass slaughter and wholesale destruction present in the Bible and they seem shocked that I would mention such a thing. The Israelites were not nice people. Also, the next time you get a chance to read it, check out the Illiad. If they showed half of the stuff that actually goes on in that book, it would be NC-17.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." Explains why Congress has no respect for an establishing church, or an established one, or anything.

boxfiddler
boxfiddler

[i]When... Did the separation of church and state part of the constitution get repealed?[/i] It wasn't ever repealed because it didn't ever exist. The First Amendment to the Constitution of The United States clearly states: [i]"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."[/i] That whole separation thing? From a letter by Thomas Jefferson to some Baptist bunch.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

that immoral behaviour in the past and even today - The Klu Klux Klan kiddies being one modern group like that.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Force a man from his home because you don't like what he says. It doesn't get more immoral than that.

Ed Woychowsky
Ed Woychowsky

Did the separation of church and state part of the constitution get repealed? Let's take back the government and tax the churches. No one should get a free ride. :)

BubbaGlock
BubbaGlock

You can always move to another country if you hate America. And take Obama with you.

mendtodd
mendtodd

One of the joys of living in a country founded by puritanical fundamentalists.

Slvrknght
Slvrknght

Sorry to laugh, but your line about a teenager leaving a string of unsatisfied girls would probably explain why so many of them were irritated all the while I was going through high school.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

Given the guy published it all over the rest of the world. (I bought my copy in Amsterdam), the utter futility of banning it just proved the fundmamental stupidity of politicians in general and Thatcher in particular.

Marty R. Milette
Marty R. Milette

Spy Catchers by Peter Wright is a good example. Aside from the number of homosexual MI5 members -- nothing terribly upsetting in that one.

TX Old Sarge
TX Old Sarge

That is because the media is used to sell kids stuff to look like their pop star idols and parents are too lax to say no.

TX Old Sarge
TX Old Sarge

If we leave it up to some they will be teaching the Kama Sutra to 10 year olds in school.

dawgit
dawgit

I've seen ten year olds (mostly girls) who knew more about sex than a lot of 30 year olds. But they didn't get it from books... (They watched their parents poon)

Ed Woychowsky
Ed Woychowsky

Why adult? And what is an adult? I've seen ten year old children that behave more adult than thirty year olds.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

because they wished to 'purify' the Church of England, making it less Catholic and more Protestant. The Puritans had no desire to separate Church from State, they wanted to remold the Church (and thus the State) to their image of purity. Yes, their religious beliefs were the root cause of their leaving England, but had they been left to their own devices, the Massachusetts Bay Colony would most likely be a theocracy today.

TX Old Sarge
TX Old Sarge

That concept was used to state that the Government would stay the hell out of religion. Indeed, it was lad from your state that wrote Jefferson because the State government was planning on making the Congregational Church the State church with the intent of taxing to support it like the policies in England. The irony is that the Puritans came to MA to escape that very thing. Tom replied that it would not be allowed because there was a "wall of separation between the Church and State". That is a bit different than how people use that phrase today, which is in a personal letter, not in any of the charter documents of the land. Congress once printed Bibles and they searched the Bible to make the laws. Just browsing through their literature you can see they had no problem bringing religious principles into the government. Congressional Chaplains were allowed to pray in Jesus' name not required to offer up a mush prayer. While it may not have been their conscious intent they basically entered into a covenant with God and made this nation a lot like Israel in the theocracy days. It would appear that God took them at their word and blessed us as long as we followed their example. Now we are kicking God out of everything. We are not doing well in many areas so it is safe to say that it does not look like He is on our side anymore and we can stop singing, "God bless America", because He can't and our trust certainly is not in Him.

Ed Woychowsky
Ed Woychowsky

The point isn't the reading materials for one's own children, the point is that some want control over everyone's reading material.

Marketing
Marketing

When I was in school, if there was a book with material that some people may find inappropriate or uncomfortable, the book in question was held at the desk and if a student wanted to read it, they took home a permission form for their parents to sign. Those whose parents permitted it, got to read it. Those whose parents said no probably borrowed it from one of the kids above. So it was lightly censored yet still available to those who wish to read it. My kids are specifically reading banned books because I want them to see some of the ways people try to control what others do and see. I read The Witch of Blackbird Pond myself recently and couldn't find anything anyone could be offended at except the word Witch.

bombdude
bombdude

Perhaps there should be no "ban" to be included in, rather parents should decide what their kids can be allowed to read. Images of tortured individuals aren't "good" for anyone's mind, but can be used as an example of what people at their worst are capable of. However, I should be the one keeping my children from seeing that until they are mature enough to do so, and with reason.

Ed Woychowsky
Ed Woychowsky

The point is that those that do the banning want to do it for everyone's children, not just their own.

rds
rds

Parents are the ones to decide the maturity of their children. I have no qualms about not letting my kids play fighting games at 8 but as teens they handled it just fine.

Slvrknght
Slvrknght

I was minding my own business, discussing my beliefs with friends as we were sitting around eating our lunch. It was a lively conversation and we were all rather animated about it (in a good way). We just happened to be (unfortunately) within earshot of one of the abortion protesters who felt the need to berate me about it. Now, I was raised Catholic, consider myself a deist, and I have faith in God. I have a whole host of issues with people who site the whole "in God we trust" stamped on our currency as "proof" of our founding fathers' beliefs (In God we Trust wasn't added to our currency until 1864 and wasn't made the official motto of the US until 1956). I'm rambling, so I'll stop there. Suffice it to say, Religion needs to stay the hell out of my Government.

Flat_Stanley
Flat_Stanley

"In order to be an immaculate member of a flock of sheep, one must above all be a sheep oneself." - Albert Einstein

Ed Woychowsky
Ed Woychowsky

Faith should be strong enough to be questioned. Your a good parent.

ktw.zd.net
ktw.zd.net

Not a popular point but a good one. I know what I believe, but I told my kids that questioning their faith is essential to really having faith.

Editor's Picks