You can't read this

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Should books be banned because of their content? If so, what content should make them be banned?

And, I write them.

Fairly easy question that. Intelligent people will shout "NO!" Those of lesser mental acumen, not secure in themselves or their beliefs AND who believe they have the right to dictate how someone else should live will say "yes."

Nother question. Should access to books be restricted? Ah. A much tougher question now. Before you say yes or no, consider the entire spectrum of literature. At one end put the incomprehensible and brain-petrifying works of sociologists. They take much delight in taking obfuscation to levels that make my ramblings seem like the work of a second grader.

At the other end place the most hard-core material imaginable.

I ask again, should access to books be restricted? The most damage you could incur in giving a 5 year old a sociology book is a hernia. Hand that same child the illustrated works of mass murders, sausage making, Reboobicans, Damnocrats, Liarberals, Can'tservatives and so forth and you might turn the munchkin into a politician or lawyer.

You are getting sleepy...

I am not serious. It takes far more than a single exposure to one book to irrevocably wreck a child's psyche. I hope anyway.

Intelligent people won't ban books, but will restrict access to 'em for a while. See above.

Intelligent adults can read anything they can get their hands on and more power to 'em. So sez I, whose personal library has included works by Anton LeVay, Ambrose Bierce, Moses, Mohammad, Zoroaster, George Orwell, Isaiah, the Marquis de Sade, Douglas Adams, Hemingway, Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, William Gaines and other folks you've never heard of.

The question THEN becomes - what criteria do you use to ban or restrict access to a book? Afore you answer that, eyeball this list.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/2011/0928/10-banned-books-that-may-surprise-you/James-and-the-Giant-Peach-by-Roald-Dahl

HE'S NAKED UNDER THE BEARD!

I have served on a library committee which reviewed one of the listed books. A parent at the elementary school object to Shel Silverstein's book. The librarian asked if I'd read the book and give her my opinion. The majority opinion of the committee would decide if the book stayed or got booted.

The book stayed. Unanimous verdict. Don't know what the parent had to say. Don't care either.

I told the librarian I didn't need to read the book. It's a children's classic, enjoyed by adults too. (never mind that I abhor poetry, I make an exception for Silverstein in small doses).

I ask again, what is your criteria for keeping a book away from someone?

How about "Harriet the Spy,' No. 5 on the list mentioned above. "Louise Fitzhugh's well-loved tale of a girl who spies on her friends and has to face the consequences was banned because it set a bad example for children, supposedly encouraging them to spy, lie, and swear," states the clip about the book.

This man is accused of reading Little Black Sambo.

 
Ah. It sets a bad example. So books that teach children to lie, spy, and swear should be banned or restricted?

You sure? How about books that also speak of cannibalism, incest and ritual murder including murder of infants?

I recall one large televangelist describing why some books should be banned because "they describe the movement of the tongue over the body." I think he was jealous.

I also think he needs to re-read a book.

Gonna torque a bunch of people right here and delight some others. Hey. It's what I do.

"How delightful is your love, my sister, my bride!
   How much more pleasing is your love than wine,

Biblical scholar at a seminary wrote this.

and the fragrance of your perfume
   more than any spice!
Your lips drop sweetness as the honeycomb, my bride;
   milk and honey are under your tongue.
The fragrance of your garments
   is like the fragrance of Lebanon."

Song of Solomon, 4:10-11

Plenty more. Men are instructed to be delighted by their wife's breasts. Other passages describe far more graphic things as I'm not going into here. But yeah, it's in the Bible.

I forget how many times David lied. I forget how many times the Israelites were sent to spy. Etc. etc. etc. Not even the great Matthew Henry could adequately explain the lying that takes place in the Bible.

Does the Bible apparently condone lying under certain circumstances? I can't find any place that David was held accountable for his lies. Other Biblical liars are likewise venerated as heroes and nowhere in Scripture are they held accountable for the lies. Maybe I missed it. I am not a Bible scholar, just a humble reader of the Word.

So should a book be banned or restricted based on the words and situations described in the book?

Or is the intention more important than the content? That's what SCOTUS has ruled on pornography.

The problem with that is, Who will decide what the intention is?

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." Matthew 7:1-2

Are you willing to go there?

•••



Throwing this in as well as a last minute thing. Couldn't figure where to place it in the above.

Some folks would ban Harry Potter.

Some folks is idiots too. If you intend to start banning books based on content, then we should throw The Chronicles of Narnia on the same heap as Harry Potter. Both books have magic. Both use magic to good ends. In both, good triumphs over evil.

Another victim of cable news shows.

My brother, an educator, points out that when a child picks up a 500 page book and attempts to read it in ONE sitting, then something is going on. Something that needs to be encouraged. Something that needs to be reinforced.

If a young'un picks up a Harry Potter book, make sure the next installment is handy for the child to read when that book is done.


There is no greater indicator of success in this world that the ability and willingness to read. And yet, as I have observed in the past, some parents actually object to their children being required to read books in school. These parents, I note, are in low paying jobs (if employed), resentful, often bigots and believe then can do a better job of running other peoples lives than the person whose actually living the life. They are Liarberals and Can'tservatives, Reboobicans and Damnocrats.

They are also poorly educated and do not willingly read.

And in closing, I remind myself I've given people in my community yet another stack of reasons to vilify, excoriate, hate and judge me all because I choose to not watch shadows dancing on the wall. The same kind of people nailed Jesus to the cross. I reckon I'm in pretty good company.

“Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."