The American Library Association and others have declared September 24 to October 1 as "Banned Books Week."
My first observation is that this is an eight-day period. This, no doubt, is to demonstrate just how insidious is the practice of "banning" books. This should not be construed to reflect negatively on the ability of librarians to do math. Remember that they are more intelligent and enlightened than you. After all, they are librarians. We should not question their wisdom if they declare that an eight-day week is beneficial for us.
The skill of librarians as the determinative wisdom of our national consciousness is also seen in their statement on something they like to call intellectual freedom:
Banned Books Week (BBW) celebrates the freedom to choose or the freedom to express one’s opinion even if that opinion might be considered unorthodox or unpopular and stresses the importance of ensuring the availability of those unorthodox or unpopular viewpoints to all who wish to read them. After all, intellectual freedom can exist only where these two essential conditions are met.I have no problem with the first assertion. Any yahoo can propose, peddle, or preach whatever he wants. I do have a problem with the second assertion. There is nothing in our Constitution or the common sense dictates of democratic governance that requires that I provide a forum or tax dollars to "ensuring the availability" of your views. The first amendment to the Constitution, which the Librarians claim to defend, is this:
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.This simply says that Congress cannot prohibit your books from being bought, sold, or published. It does not restrict my right to act as a citizen, in concert with other citizens, to remove from the public support of my community those works deemed inappropriately supported with public funds. Whatever the relative merits or objections of any particular public disapproval of selected books, there is no absolute right, in any sense, to any individual’s use of public funds to promote his cause.
A recent example of the types of books the ALA desires to protect are It's So Amazing (targeted at K-4th grade), It's Perfectly Normal (3rd-6th), and The Teenage Guy's Survival Guide (teens). These works contain descriptive and offensive text and pornographic images. They easily violate all but the most liberal and depraved community standards and should not be allowed in any public library. Yet, the Fayetteville Board of Education and ALA are currently in a legal and public relations fight to keep these very titles in the hands of impressionable Arkansas youngsters against the wishes of their parents.
If you think this is much ado about nothing, please visit the following pornographic links. ALA Porn for Children. ALA Porn for Children II. NOTE: the text and images on this web page are taken directly from the children's books mentioned. I was offended (and really did not expect to be). If pornographic materials easily offend you - especially those marketed to children though publicly supported schools - then do not follow the link. Here is another page for your consideration: Shocking School Library Porn in Arkansas.
Once again, I see that Liberal Arrogance thinks it possesses the wisdom and responsibility to do "what is good for all you other unenlightened people." Groups like the American Library Association have made such a radicalized commitment to an indefensible standard that they leave no middle ground for those who would be agreeable to some form of true moderate governance. Thus, I am forced, regrettably, oppose the ALA. Perhaps someday our society will have commonsense elites with some basic level of morality. Until then, we who believe in determinative freedom must fight the depraved madness.
I found these pages almost humorous, but when I was reminded that these books are aimed at children- horrified. Most horrified because what excerpts are available treat sex as a recreational activity. "It's fun and feels good!"
Soccer is fun. Getting a haircut feels good. Drinking coffee with friends is both fun and feels good.
Exactly. That is one reason the pages I linked to are so shrill in their tone. These pictures are intended for your 6-8 year old. Most of the text would not even be permitted on "Jake Allen's Ockhamist.com"
In a few years, little Regis will be in Kindergarten. I guess I will then make national news by the fuss I make over his required reading. Then everyone will know the true identity of Blandus Rex*.
* Blandus makes no claim to be (or not to be) secretly (or openly) Jake Allen of "Jake Allen's Ockhamist.com"
What?
Not this again! Blandus is not Jake Allen.
Madness.
Posted by: Jake Allen at September 27, 2005 09:45 AMSpeaking of people who think they possesses the wisdom and responsibility to do "what is good for all you other unenlightened people."
I don't know when available reading materials became "required reading" in your mind. Also I remember a large number of the challenged books being in my school library, because they were privately donated. NOT purchased with tax money.
And also speaking of "radicalized commitment to an indefensible standard" ALSO Challenged for Sexual Content: The Chocolate War, by Robert Cormer and I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings, by Maya Angelou.
So what is the standard by which things are banned? Does the Great Blandus decide what is available for my children to read at school or the public library? If every parent or citizen has an unlimited number of vetos on books will there be any left to put on the shelves? If I GAVE a copy of Of Mice and Men* to your local school (eliminating the tax issue. Hhmm am I the ONLY person who grew up with significant portions of her school and public libraries coming from private donations?) would you demand it be thrown in the trash?
*challenged for racism, offensive language and violence
TheAmber-
I do appreciate the moniker. I like it. Perhaps it will stick. If only I could get the Regina to use it. . .
My point is simply that the "everything not only goes but is to be prefered in all its deviancy" approach of the ALA is indefensible. The good people who make up this republic do have boundaries and standards. These boundaries and standards must be respected.
It takes my tax dollars to house and maintain your donated books. That gives me a say in what my public library or school can or cannot put on its shelves.
I have every right to protest indoctrinating pornography targeted to the school children of my community. I have every right to work to ban those books I and the majority of my community deem harmful and offensive - no matter if you think they are worthy classics or not. Doing so does not make me an enemy of "intellectual freedom." It makes me a "responsible citizen."
If those I have entrusted with the oversight of various segments of my community - school administrators, librarians, teachers, etc. - begin actively working against the trust I have placed in them, then they need to go - and I and other concerned citizens will lead the charge to get rid of them.
Freedom and Democracy - it can still work.
Posted by: The Great Blandus at September 27, 2005 12:42 PMI think I smell a red herring.
I looked at the links. I saw a lot with which I disagree, but nothing pornographic, though I know defining the term is a slippery issue.
I'll admit that I'm annoyed that my tax dollars are being spent on such stuff, but at the same time I rather favor the idea that a library administrator should have a pool of money with which to buy whatever books are needed. Even if that means there may be abuses.
What bothers me about public sex-ed programs is the general message, not the pictures: sex is good, so go do it, and the sooner the better. But that opinion is not at all uncommon, and it worries me that society has the idea that banning any book containing an unpopular or controversial viewpoint is the best solution. Shall we ban Huck Finn? Harry Potter? Or perhaps the Bible? I think I'd rather not.
Moreover, I consider it important that my future children encounter worldviews and ideologies opposed to mine, and hence have the chance to learn a better reason for what they believe than "It's what my Mom and Dad told me." Equally important is the chance to meet the people who hold those ideologies and learn that even if we disagree with someone, that doesn't make them a big green goon.
It seems to me that my wife and I are the ones with the responsibility to raise our children so that they not only know Right from Wrong, but are also strong enough to choose Right. If they get those books thrown at them and then go out and start copulating left and right, then we will have in some sense failed.
Further, it is my experience that the refusal to allow children anywhere near temptation only makes them extremely susceptible to temptation when it comes later in life. So personally I'd rather my child read those books listed up above, and understood what they were saying and what kind of lifestyle that leads to, along with the potential/likely consequences thereof (those being a broken heart, venereal diseases, and worst of all a self-indulgent attitude inimical to Christianity in particular and genuine human happiness in general).
As a matter of fact I'd rather teach them from those books myself, rather than have them banned.
After all:
If I pay taxes to the government of a nation that does not perfectly share my faith and morals, and that government funds public education for all based on the perceived common culture and morality, and I decide to take the easy way out and send my children to these free government schools, in whose curriculum I have no real say beyond what this or that bylaw or charter might grant me, then how can I expect that my child will be taught my faith and morals?
So:
If you want your children to be taught your morals, then make sure you teach them your morals. If you don't think they're strong enough to withstand the temptation that they will encounter regardless of curriculum in the public schools (from their peers, if not from their teachers), then keep them home and teach them everything yourself.
And, as far as my opinion goes, if you're going to teach them at home, then you should eventually use some of the sex-ed books from the public schools. Because the idea isn't to protect them, it's to train them to resist temptation themselves. They're going to find it sooner or later.
Posted by: J.A. Cook at September 27, 2005 03:35 PMNote: some of those books in question, that is, the ones mentioned on the site below, really are beyond the pale. I certainly would rather they not be in the library. I'm more confused how they got there in the first place, not to say published at all. Nonetheless, I still wouldn't ban them.
http://www.wpaag.org/Books%20-%20Pornographic%20in%20Sch.%20Library.htm
Posted by: J.A. Cook at September 27, 2005 03:47 PMI smell something, but it is not herring.
Perhaps we did not follow the same links. The first two I cited contained realistic (though slightly cartoonish) color drawings of copulating couples with the women's breasts exposed and of a man masturbating with penis shown. They were not pornographic?
The books referenced in my post are intended for elementary school kids. I am not for removing every temptation or divergent view from my child's experience of the world. I am, however, concerned with the harmful personal and societal aspects of children's early exposure to pornography and aspects of the human lifecycle that are inappropriate to their developmental age. I am opposed to any teaching or literature whose intention is to harm my child.
Not pornographic. . . Seriously?
Posted by: The Great Blandus at September 27, 2005 04:52 PMI knew leaving that in would cause trouble. Sorry 'bout that. It's really a peripheral discussion, and I shouldn't have led off with it. Basically, I personally don't find them pornographic, in that they don't seem intended to be titillating. Which ultimately says only that I don't personally find themto be so.
I don't like the fact that libraries are stocking them, and they are indeed in all probability inappropriate for the age group for which they are intended. I say "in all probability" because I'm not sure why precisely we think that children of that age shouldn't know the "facts of life," and can see a certain legitimacy to the viewpoint that they might as well know sooner than later. Trying to make it later generally just means that they find out from someone else first, and don't get the healthiest ideas about it.
Anyway--my basic point was, and remains, not that the stuff isn't pornographic (that's just semantics), nor that it should or shouldn't be in the schools. My point is that it is, and will remain so to one degree or another. So if you have a problem with it, take your kids out of the schools.
Posted by: J.A. Cook at September 27, 2005 06:17 PMThis is similar to the thinking that has given rise to a section of the home-schooling movement. I don't think it is a good line of thought. The idea is negatively stated as "the schools are beyond saving and will only become more and more like God-less Hell, so let's get our kids out of there!"
I think we have a purpose to be salt and light in a dying world. We should save as many as we can (yes, the work is the Lord's who uses us). We cannot do that as well from the outside. Yes, there will always be things I disagree with in the schools because everyone is not like me. I understand that as simply part of a free society. However, "freedom" for all does not mean everybody else gets to do their worst and I have to sit back and take it. Books like the ones cited are forms of child abuse. I will stop you from beating your kid and I will also do my best to make sure you do not destroy his mind or soul. My ability to do the latter is limited, and rightfully so, but it is not eliminated simply because a "cut and run" strategy is available.
In the South, it is considered rude to tell black people, "Hey, if you don't like it - Go back to Africa." Why, when a "moral person" complains about public schools, even his friends will say, "If you don't like it, then don't send your kids to the schools"?
Posted by: The Great Blandus at September 27, 2005 10:06 PMThe Great Blandus (I'm glad you like the name),
Perhaps it is my own feeble mind, but I fail to see the distinction between you 'Saving all of you unenlightened people from yourselves' by campaigning for the removal of these books and the ALA 'Saving all of you unenlightened people from yourselves' by campaigning to have these books remain.
You say "The good people who make up this republic do have boundaries and standards. These boundaries and standards must be respected." Clearly I am not one of the good people, since I never got the memo defining the hard and fast boundaries that the good people have established. Would you please define these moral boundaries? Or do you just know them when you see them?
I am starting to wonder if you understand the drive behind Banned Books Week. No one, not even the ALA is saying you can't or shouldn't protest against the books you find unsuitable. Banned Books Week is not intended to tell you that you are wrong to want some or all of the books in the library gone.
One function of Banned Books Week is to alert me. I have the same right to protest that you do. Banned Books Week exists to remind all of the Ambers in the world that if I want a book to stay on the shelves I need to speak up. While the Great Blandus' are writing letters to the librarians about the evil in the books, I, having no issues with the books, am NOT writing to the librarians about how everything is just fine and I have no problems with the library. Banned Books Week is intended to remind everyone else that in many cases a very vocal minority is all that is being heard.
A Second function of Banned Books Week is to alert YOU. Unless you spend your days combing the children's' section on the prowl for porn (in which case I think we should have a little chat about appropriate behavior) I bet you didn't even know that many of these offensive children's books existed. Now you know. Now you can protest them.
Posted by: ~TheAmber at September 28, 2005 10:07 AMTheAmber-
The ALA "Banned Books Week" IS telling me that I should not protest against books and that I AM wrong to want them pulled from the shelves. Read the website. (I linked to it in the original post.) It was actually reading the website that got my hackles up so much. They do not mince words. People who would remove books are enemies of freedom.
I disagree. Free decisions take place in a community. Total, unrestrained freedom is a myth only partially emulated by anarchy. The community is not absolute (why we have a Bill of Rights), but the majority does hold the right of might to set standards of daily living. This is why a 51% majority in the Senate allows the "majority" party to set the rules. This is why a candidate with 51% of the votes gets to govern.
I agree with you that Mice and Men gets to stay in the library. See? Now you and I have a community consensus. We get many others on our side and "poof" - community standards. By the same token, you can disagree that porn is appropriate for children and join me in rightly condemning the books I referenced. We get several others and "poof" - community standards. Standards that ought not be flaunted by every pervert who likes to write books for children and violated by the ALA.
Sure, "community standards" is a nebulous concept and we certainly won't always agree with whatever develops in any given discussion. I don't know exactly where the line should be drawn on each and every issue. It takes wisdom and community leaders who are willing to work together.
I do know that the ALA has taken an extreme position that cannot be taken to its conclusion. If it does, our country will not be worth having. The freedom of speech is necessary to our society. Public support of every idea is not. This is "tolerance" run amok.
Tell us, TheAmber - have you visited the examples I linked to? Don't hide behind "classics" of literature. Defend It's So Amazing and It's Perfectly Normal. I have never argued that we should ban all books I don't like. I took issue with an extremist definition of "intellectual freedom" and used concrete examples for why it does not work.
Explain to us how these pornographic novels and how-to books ought to remain on the shelves and why you have no problem with them. Explain to us why the ALA version of "intellectual freedom" is better for us than some level of reasonable limits on trash.
Posted by: The Great Blandus at September 28, 2005 01:05 PMBlandus
"Books like the ones cited are forms of child abuse." A rather bold statement. I fail to see that you have shown at all how these books are so damaging to society? It would seem that your fear is that you would do such a poor job raising your own children that exposure to the merest hint of pornographic material would turn them into raving sex maniacs or criminals.
Personally, I doubt this would be the case if your children take after you and possess your arroagance and delusional self-righteousness.
Posted by: Lee Nunn at September 28, 2005 01:37 PMNo, I didn't click on your link. I am visiting The Ockhamist while on break from my Gov.t job, using a gov.t computer, clicking on links that include the words "Child" and "Porn" would not be a good way for me to keep said job.
I have, however looked at the books on Amazon. Its Perfectly Normal even has the neat "Look Inside" feature.
I have also read the ALA site, independent of and before commenting on this post. The ALA site actually says that all children are different and it is the responsibility of the parents to moniter their childrens' library habits. Sorry, the library is not going to get rid of Its Perfectly Normal, which the majority either have no problem with or even encourage their children to read, just in case Blandus Jr. decideds to disobey you, sneak off and read it.
Perhaps the biggest point from my previous post that you missed is that BBW is about how one of the primary goals of BBW is to help keep a very vocal MINORITY (that would be YOU Blandus) from overwhelming the opinion of the silent MAJORITY (ME).
It is a time once a year for the MAJORITY to say that it does, in fact, agree with the libraries book choices (Without writing the previously mentioned, very silly "Everything is fine!" letter) To be clear: I have no problem removing a book from the library if the majority wants a book banned. I DO, however, have a problem with banning books to appease a vocal MINORITY.
Banned Books Week is when I tell the library that despite The Great Blandus' 30 letters demanding that Its Perfectly Normal be removed from the shelves, my 60 friends and I think it is A-OK that it is on the shelf.
Perhaps you are simply struggling with frustration that you are in the minority (for the most part) on the Banned Books issue.
Posted by: ~TheAmber at September 28, 2005 03:36 PMThis discussion has branched out into two different directions, so just be aware that I'm more or less skipping over the past exchanges between Blandus and Amber and Lee and going back to the last thing Blandus said contra me.
Honestly, Blandus, if you want to make a big issue out of sending your child into the schools to be salt and light, that's fine with me. Personally, I don't think I will do it myself. I know I wasn't ready to be salt and light in an constructive way at that age (loud assertions that X goes against what my parents taught me, or against the Bible, constitute an appeal to an authority not recognized by those in the schools, and encouraging my children to do so would have the unfortunate effect of fostering in them illegitimate methods of argumentation, not to mention perpetuating the already highly negative stereotypes of "Christian Fundies" held by those outside the Christian Faith. Such would also betray the fairly ancient and successful apologetic method of speaking to people based on shared presuppositions, rather than trying to shout them into submission. Hence not constructive.) I wasn't ready to be salt and light, and I suspect that my children won't be either. Perhaps, if I prove to be wrong, I'll put them in, maybe for high school. But I doubt it.
As for the question of the schools, and whether or not they are worth saving.
The problem in the schools is the teachers, the curricula, and the general philosophy currently prevalent within the educational establishment. Sending my children to the schools will do nothing to remedy that--it simply gives "the enemy" (*grin*) the chance to get at my kids while they're still vulnerable to indoctrination. Please note that I have no desire to "indoctrinate" my children myself. Educate, yes, in order that they may understand and appreciate all sides of the various debates and controversies of both past and present, and thereby be able to recognize attempts at indoctrination for the one-sided farces that they are, regardless of what side advances the attempt.
For the most part, insofar as I have observed, the educational establishment has little or no interest in education, defined as above. Furthermore, the participation of my children in our society will include (I hope) a far greater period of time than their primary education, and it is my contention that they will be better equipped by far to live an authentic Christian and intellectual witness in this society if they receive the most thorough education that my wife and I are able to give them. Which unfortunately already surpasses the abilities of the public school system.
I have to admit, though, that my argument isn't even based so much on the assertion that the public school system is "beyond saving" as it is on my perplexity regarding its existence and status as the educational norm in the first place.
That is to say, I'm not sure why government beyond the local level got involved in education in the first place, or what benefit we have garnered from that involvement over the past several decades. But perhaps I simply need more information regarding the rise of the modern public education system.
As for your final point--I apologize if I was offensive. But I don't think the situations are analogous. I share your concerns about the public schools. However, they unfortunately reflect the realities of our culture today. I cannot withdraw from the culture, certainly not permanently, but it is important to me that my children not be controlled and defined by that culture in their formative years. Therefore I will withdraw them from the public school system, at least for a time, in order that they be MY children, and NOT the State's. I see no benefit to sending them to the public schools, have not heard you articulate any benefit to sending them there, and therefore when I tell you to just forget about them, it is with the incredulity of one who has no clue why you would want anything to do with the system in the first place.
Posted by: J.A. Cook at September 28, 2005 05:29 PMMr. Cook,
A reasonable defense of your position. I am not suggesting that my child be the salt and light - all of your points in that regard are shared with me.
I am thinking that you and I should be forces of positive and godly change - not as theocrats, but as participating members of a representative democracy. If my child does not attend public schools, why should anyone care about what I think of them? If all the moral people leave the schools, how much more quickly will the culture deteriorate?
Should we not be a voice of righteousness that can be heard? What is the right relationship between a Christian and his culture?
Posted by: Blandus at September 29, 2005 09:11 AMTheAmber - I am not at all convinced that you are the majority. Even if you are, it demonstrates a wholesale lack of wisdom to maximize the offensivness given to a "vocal minority" of those "like me" as is represented by some of the material that passes for "children's literature." The right of might is present (as I've said), but is also not absolute (as I've said).
I am dealing with the frustration that you are arguing with me and have not even viewed the materials on which I based the post.
I am dealing with the frustration that you are defending books whose content you are not familiar with apparently on the basis of the ALA's idea that all thoughts are intrinsicly worthy and must never be restricted in any form.
I am dealing with the frustration that you conceed my point (some books can legitimately be banned) while suggesting I am arrogant for making it.
This is a lot of frustration for one Amber to produce. However, since you are TheAmber, I should have been more prepared before engaging in this tango dance.
Posted by: The Great Blandus at September 29, 2005 09:30 AMLee - thanks for participating.
I have not shown how these books harm society. I have not even made an attempt (only so many hours in the day). The statistics correlating early exposure to violence and pornography are availiable elsewhere (cf. the work of Dr. Bryant at the Univ. of AL). Statistics linking the poor social conditioning of these children and later problems that do affect society are also available (various statistics related to divorce, crime, rape, etc.). All of this is social science statistical research and so (in my mind) cannot be considered absolute. But it is enough to be persuasive and is certainly enough to counter any tortured statistics the pro-porn crowd might produce.
I cannot link one book to the destruction of society. We can look at the evidence and recognize that certain attitudes about children seem to lead to citizens with traits that contribute to societal harm. In the face of that evidence, it seems wise to use caution and not launch a pell-mell campaign to advance the particular cause of a special-interest group.
Contrast this with the assertion of the ALA that "intellectual freedom" requires "the availability of those unorthodox or unpopular viewpoints to all who wish to read them." Says who? By what law or agreed upon right?
It is arrogance to assert that I must tolerate harmful filth in the interests of a mocking "freedom". It is not arrogant to refuse to be enslaved to an self-motivated definition based on an inaccurate premise.
Posted by: The Great Blandus at September 29, 2005 09:46 AMNow that Jake has decided to round me up, perhaps the discussion should wind down. I'll trail off with this parting thought. . .
"No, I didn't click on your link. I am visiting The Ockhamist while on break from my Gov.t job, using a gov.t computer, clicking on links that include the words "Child" and "Porn" would not be a good way for me to keep said job."If the material in a child's book would get you fired from your job, perhaps it is reasonable to suggest that it is not really suitable for children.
--theAmber
"I am not at all convinced that you are the majority." Well according to the ALA site (and remember, these are the people who are "telling [you] that [you] should not protest against books and that [you ARE] wrong to want them pulled from the shelves.*") There have been approximately 10,335 challenges in the past 3 years. Considering the volume of people using school and public libraries and that you probably don't agree with all of the challenges I think that it is possible to infer that you are in the minority. *This point I will concede to you in part. I still don't think that you are correct, but that may simply be because I agree with the ALA for the most part, and because I believe that you do and should have full right and freedom to challenge books I am subconsciously glossing over parts of the site. Perhaps because of each of our preexisting view points I read the site as benevolent while you read it as malevolent while the reality lies somewhere in the middle.
"I am dealing with the frustration that you are arguing with me and have not even viewed the materials on which I based the post.
I am dealing with the frustration that you are defending books whose content you are not familiar with apparently on the basis of the ALA's idea that all thoughts are intrinsically worthy and must never be restricted in any form."
I find this bizarre. I have already told you that while I have not used the links you supplied, I have read both the ALA Banned Books Week site and sites with information about the books you mentioned. I even walked across the street (Where, conveniently, my local public library is located) so I could see the books in person. Please don't make assumptions about the amount of research I may or may not have done.
I do not defend the existence of the books based on the ALA's idea that thoughts should not be restricted. I defend the existence of the books on the basis of MY idea that thoughts should not be restricted. It is my understanding that the United States Constitution does guarantee my freedom to think anything I want to think If I think that I should stick my tongue out at everyone who drinks Pepsi, I may do so. I may even act on my idea, since (despite the fact that my idea and actions are offensive to Pepsi drinkers) I am in no way impinging on the civil liberties of Pepsi drinkers. Nowhere is it said that Americans have the right to live their lives without being offended.
I do, truly, understand your displeasure at the fact that your tax dollars are being spent on the purchase and maintenance of materials that express ideas that you are morally opposed to. But, as I alluded to previously, if everyone had infinite veto power what books would remain? I have moral issues with the King James Bible, and I bet I could get the support of a bunch of "Separation of church and state" extremists to help me get it banned. According to you I am right to do this. Are you sure of that? Or were you only sure that banning books was reasonable when you thought your own Christian belief systems and morality was immune to such threat?
"I am dealing with the frustration that you concede my point (some books can legitimately be banned) while suggesting I am arrogant for making it." I am sorry, I misspoke and I am afraid my poor phrasing mislead you. When I said that I have no problem with books being banned by a majority vote it was not my intention to say that book banning is acceptable if it is done by majority vote. What I was trying to say is that if we are banning books (which I find unacceptable), I believe that to be the only justifiable way of doing so.
Those who know me well know that you are not experiencing an exceptional amount of frustration for when one is dealing with TheAmber.
Moving on:
"Should we not be a voice of righteousness that can be heard?" Isn't that what Banned Books Week does? It is doubtful that I would have ever heard about It's Perfectly Normal, It's Amazing, or Teenage Guy's Survival Guide if it hadn't been for Banned Books Week. Would you have known about these books? Now that you know about them wont you now be able to assist the other 'voices of righteousness' in crying out against the darkness, decrying the foolishness of people like me? Had Banned Books Week and the ALA site not posted their list of Most Challenged Books how would you have known that the 'voices of righteousness' needed augmenting? The ALA site is your enemy laying their battle plan before you, are you so blindly angry about the war that you will not take the advantage that is given to you?
"Books like the ones cited are forms of child abuse. I will stop you from beating your kid and I will also do my best to make sure you do not destroy his mind or soul." And "The statistics correlating early exposure to violence and pornography are available elsewhere (cf. the work of Dr. Bryant at the Univ. of AL). Statistics linking the poor social conditioning of these children and later problems that do affect society are also available (various statistics related to divorce, crime, rape, etc.). All of this is social science statistical research and so (in my mind) cannot be considered absolute. But it is enough to be persuasive and is certainly enough to counter any tortured statistics the pro-porn crowd might produce." I am sorry, this argument is so terribly weak it is laughable. Do you realize I can make an equally strong virtually the same argument for eliminating processed sugar, white flour, ankle length dresses and practically anything else you can imagine by simply replacing "Books like the ones cited" and "violence and pornography" with whatever evil thing I want. For your "Child abuse" comment to actually justify you actively* interfering with they way I raise my children you have to: 1. Prove a causal relationship between exposure and developmental problems 2. Prove that the books in question are pornography.
* I made a note by the word actively because if the book is in the library there is nothing forcing you and/or your child to read it. Your stated intent is to prevent me from allowing my child to read this book. I have no doubt that there is probably much that you believe to be right and true in child rearing that I believe to be wrong and even abusive just as I am sure you would feel the same way about some of my parenting beliefs. BUT since I lack definitive proof that being made to go to Christian Church every Sunday (for random example) is harmful to a child's mind, body or spirit I say nothing, and do not try to have the King James Bible banned from the library. I don't understand why you are so unwilling to give me the same curtesy.
Please, and I don't mean this as an insult, leave my children's souls alone. I would never dream of trying to impose Jewish, Pagan, or Agnostic views on your children. Please don't try to force your Christian views on my children. I don't care if you are trying to save their souls. That is very nice and I appreciate the thought but no thank you.
"If the material in a child's book would get you fired from your job, perhaps it is reasonable to suggest that it is not really suitable for children." I am not worried about the material in the books, I am worried about the incendiary link title. If the link was titled differently I would have no problem using it since I have seen the same material on this computer without using your link. AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE.
Finally, you are still insisting that you must save the rest of us from ourselves and in the same breath berating the ALA for trying to save people from themselves. You are doing this without any sense of irony, or a sense of your own hypocrisy. Yet you still claim to not be arrogant.
Well, I am done with this. I just thought I would put forth something coherent rather than just amusing myself by poking you with a stick.
This is an amazing conversation. I just wanted to comment on that level.
And the books do not belong in any community-owned library of which I am a partial owner.
And really - why do we have public libraries? Ben Franklin, though in favor of public police and firefighting, was satisfied with a private library system.
I'm not going to pretend to be as deep as the posts above, but the question had to be asked. A public school without a library is not an evil.
Posted by: Kevin Bowden at October 1, 2005 05:18 AMQuestion: Should a Christian librarian have the right to stock the shelves with Christian books and would this cause the same reaction on the left? What if this Christian lives in a community that is not in the "Bible belt" and opposes this standard of books? Should taxpayers pay to stock a public library with only Christian material? I am a Christian. I oppose filth in every venue. Just wondering.
Posted by: at October 1, 2005 06:38 AMtheAmber - anytime you would like to post something coherent, I'd be happy to read it.
Posted by: Blandus at October 1, 2005 02:18 PMAnon - it would be wrong for a "Christian librarian" to "stock a public library with only Christian material." (and yes, the Left would go nuts.)
It is not the place of the librarian to use the library for mischevious social engineering (even if we like the particular goal). The schools and public libraries should be sensitive to community standards but relatively neutral in the culture war. The ALA does not understand this and tries to work up into a frenzy people to denounce any reasonable questioning of their leftist social views. It would be as wrong for the librarian to hide behind a novel definition of "religious freedom" as it is for the ALA to hide behind their ridiculous notion of "intellectual freedom."
Posted by: Blandus at October 1, 2005 02:42 PMBlandus - As far as I know, the precondition for being coherent isn't being you. I detest your off-hand dismissal of theAmber's comments.
Posted by: Revolutionary_Debris at October 1, 2005 07:00 PMDebris,
coherent: (a) sticking together, having cohesion (b) logically connected, consistent, clearly articulated.
1) What makes you think it was off-handed?
2) Do you think theAmber has been coherent in her arguments?
3) Has she addressed the issue I raised in the post?
4) Has she assumed too much or too little of my opinions on matters I did not directly address?
5) Was my "dismissal" of ~theAmber's final rant equal-to or more-restrained-than her initial salvo against me?
6) Do you think that theAmber's charge of arrogance against me has been argued from what I said or the views that she has ascribed to me?
7) When did I suggest that one had to "be me" in order to be coherent?
Posted by: Blandus at October 1, 2005 08:29 PM1.) off-handed: a.) casually thoughtless or inconsiderate; "an offhand manner"; b.) in a casually inconsiderate manner; "replied offhand, his mind a million miles away." In what way is this not an off-handed comment?
2.) Yes I do.
3.) Yes she has.
4.) Not really, no.
5.) Not at all. In no way.
6.) You, yourself, have made the claims of arrogance upon others long before theAmber made them against you. So I don't really sympathise with you. Sorry.
7.) It appears all along from your posts that any oppositional point of view cannot be coherent in your eyes.
Posted by: at October 1, 2005 10:00 PMThe last post was myself.
Posted by: Revolutionary_Debris at October 1, 2005 10:01 PMThank you, Blandus. I agree. Just wondering where you stood.
Posted by: at October 2, 2005 08:19 AMEssential structure of Blandus's argument
1. "The good people who make up this republic do have boundaries and standards."
A statement I don't think anyone would disagree with except the most radical libertarian.
2. "It takes my tax dollars to house and maintain your donated books."
This is true but doesn't it also take your tax dollars to secure my life, liberty, and property (Using the most conservative definition of what public funds should be used for.
Where the logic breaks down is where these standards come from:
3A. "The community is not absolute (why we have a Bill of Rights), but the majority does hold the right of might to set standards of daily living."
So outside the Bill of Rights things are determined by majority of the community.
Or are they
3B. "The statistics correlating early exposure to violence and pornography are availiable elsewhere (cf. the work of Dr. Bryant at the Univ. of AL). Statistics linking the poor social conditioning of these children and later problems that do affect society are also available (various statistics related to divorce, crime, rape, etc.)."
Here we have an argument both outside of the framework of the Bill of Rights (I can't think of any book of hand that violates the "rights" enshrined in our first ten constitutional amendments) and a simple majority. Here we have an argument for "the common good" as a standard (Which by the way is an opinion which I share). I think this is where your argument is at its best. However it poses some interesting questions.
Posted by: at October 2, 2005 01:51 PMThe case of alcohol:
"For more than 4 in 10 convicted murderers being held either in jail or in State prison, alcohol use is reported to have been a factor in the crime. Nearly half of those convicted of assault and sentenced to probation had been drinking when the offense occurred." - Greenfield, Lawrence A., US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Alcohol and Crime: An Analysis of National Data on the Prevalence of Alcohol Involvement in Crime (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, April, 1998), p. 21.
Here we have clear evidence that alcohol is directly related to murder and assault. If we ban these books why not alcohol which seems to led to even greater social ills than "Its Perfectly Normal"?
I hope this is coherent enough to merit a response.
Posted by: Dan Hugger at October 2, 2005 01:55 PMAs to how this effects point two. Your tax dollars pay for the methods of production of alcohol (through police protection of the brewery from theft and vandalism), its distribution (On public highways, and its consequences (In prison terms for those covicted for crimes in which alcohol contributed, the legal proceedings that put them there, and publicly funded rehab clinics).
Posted by: Dan Hugger at October 2, 2005 01:59 PMHugger- thanks for joining. The immediate response to alcohol is that WE DO protect children from it (not as well as we should, but that's another subject). While this argument has been going different places, as far as school libraries are concerned it would seem that your alcohol example confirms the practice of removing books that do not conform to community standards.
Blandus and others have been blending school and public libraries together, but as far as schools are concerned, alcohol is a good precedent for removing sexually explicit books.
~TheAmber- Does school make a difference? Americans have traditionally upheld great freedoms for adults, while maintaining great restrictions for children. Schools are a particularly controlled environment. Public libraries aside, do you think that school-children should enjoy the same libertine freedoms that adults do? This has not been the American tradition.
Blandus- Do you see a difference in standards between publicly funded schools and public libraries? Should we have a greater one?
Madness?
Posted by: Jake Allen at October 2, 2005 04:53 PMOn the issue of what constitutes arrogance, I'll guess I'll have to agree to disagree. I based my claims of arrogance on a specific official statement by the ALA. Others have responded that I am arrogant seemingly on the grounds that I have an opinion, and not on anything I have actually said. Perhaps it is the way I said it. I never claimed that I know what is right for every situation. In fact, I give a lot of deference to the local community to decide. I might suggest some of you grow a thicker skin.
theAmber immediately misconstrued my position to mean that I wanted to take away books she likes such as Mice and the Chocolate Factory or some such. She continued to use a blunt stick to "poke" me with even as I continued to attempt to refine my position based on criticisms I tried to contrue as responses to my actual arguments. It was only after she "was done with this" that I understood that she had not grasped the point of my argument, had no intention of giving me a respectful reading, and was blithely changing the "meaning" of her arguments as we wore on. She was not engaged in actual dialogue and did not stand by her own comments. Her posts thus lack consistency and referential integrity.
Debris unfortunate defense of theAmber merely serves to emphasize the problem. When I asked if theAmber had "assumed too much or too little", Debris answers "Not really, no." Maddness? Perhaps this meant theAmber, like Goldilocks, got it "just right" when assuming my position on items I did not discuss. Who knows? How does Debris know my unexpressed thoughts? Can one carry on an intelligent discussion like this?
I am always happy to defend my positions or engage our visitors in an actual discussion. This is demonstrated by the length of time I took theAmber seriously. But really, if all you want to do is be a loudmouth troll - shout yer piece and move on. At the very least, for the sake of your own position, don't give me more reason to think I am right about the "enlightened people."
Posted by: Blandus at October 2, 2005 07:17 PMSeveral others have been ignoring the relative contexts of my various comments. I was engaged in three streams of argument, each with assumptions brought to the particular stream by my challenger.
There was theAmber debacle - with a whole host of confusing cross-talk. It is going to be difficult to go back and make any sense of that context, because we can't know what she was really talking about. But if you view my responses as clarifications of the points she seemed to be attacking (who knows?) then my position (especially as it relates to the main post) should be relatively clear.
Mr. Cook engaged me in a "Christ in Culture" type of argument. What role does the Christian have in shaping/interacting with the culture? I seem to be more aggressive than the Wanderer, though it might be fair to say that he is less engaging than me. These comments are between two Christians of different traditions and I made no attempt to normalize them for all of American society.
Finally, the most misconstrued comment is to the broadside from Nunn. I did not, and explicitly did not claim, to be conclusively demonstrating societal causation of any kind. I merely answered the ridiculous notion that I must somehow demonstrate to his liking that porn is harmful to children before holding a personal position on the subject. My comments only showed that I have done a spot of reading on the subject and my views are not completely out of left-field or without merit. If anyone wants to investigate this problem for themselves, they are welcome to do so. Whether or not porn is actually harmful to kids does nothing to affect my position that the ALA's definition of "intellectual freedom" is untenable in a free society.
I like Jake's answer to Hugger's coherent questioning (though I would caution Hugger with an understanding of my comments as explained above).
To Jake,
Yes, there is a difference in a school library and a public library. But only in that the case for removing materials deemed "harmful" or "objectionable" to/for children is stronger for the school.
No person has an absolute right to have their book distributed at public expense.
Posted by: Blandus at October 2, 2005 07:42 PMJake and Blandus,
Thanks for the clairification. I thought the illustraition of the books targeted towards children was an example of things that should be banned and not nesisarily part of the framework under which they sould be banned.
I actually think focusing on children blurs the argument. The studies that I have seen about violence and sex have been done on collage students and not children and the negative social effects are similar. I'm wondering why we need to hide behind children in this sort of debate.
If books and films (sexually explicit, ultraviolent, racist etc.) have a negative effects on all people (Which they have been proven to do so) why should the good people of the republic set boundaries and limits only for children? Why in fact if it has been proven to have these effects which result in the use of public courts and jails would we not ban them everywhere (Unless for some bizarre reason we hold the Bill of Rights above the common good)?
In fact a more clear cut case presents itself in reguards to alcohol, tobacco useage (Dan takes a drag from his cigerette), and the use of fossil fuels.
Posted by: Dan Hugger at October 2, 2005 08:38 PMNo person has an absolute right to engauge in practices which will likely result in a marked increase of social ills and their resulting public expense
Posted by: Dan Hugger at October 2, 2005 08:42 PMThis discussion has been very interesting. Jake's comments are right on the money. The arguments remind me of the old saying,"Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it." Well, what can be done about the "problem." (Although Amber sees a different problem). As far as the public libraries go, this is a lost cause. There are too many Constitutional protections in place. Public school libraries are a different matter. There are no such constitutional protections.
What is in a school library is up the Trustees. The Trustees are elected by the people and are accountable. This accountability is local. Placing pressure on Trustees is one way to effect change. In my own experience as a Trustee, when a group of parents identified a book which was to my mind not suitable for children, there were howls from the librarians of book banning. I was challenged that there were parts of the Bible (I never implied that my objection was on a Biblical basis) that were inappropriate. However, when I challenged the librarian to allow me to read any part of the Bible in public of her chosing, and she would read any part of the book at issue of my chosing, she backed off this line of argument (no one would read the book aloud in public and the newspaper would not print the objectionable parts, the book was very sexually explicit). When it came down to a vote, I lost by a vote of 6 to 1. The other Trustees were mainstream and I respected them. There was however, a compromise. The policy for placing books in the library and for checking out the books were given more parental input and control, and therefore this process resulted in a significant change.
There are two other ways to effect change, neither holding much promise. Legislatively or through the court system are methods which from a practical standpoint are of low probability.
What is one to do? From the standpoint of serving as a Trustee in a public school district for nine years, a parent for decades, and a physcian, I have no doubt as to the inappropriateness of the materials in question for elementary, middle school or even secondary school children. What did I do? I sent my children to Christian schools through eighth grade and then to a public high school. By then our children had the faith, training, beliefs and the experience to be "salt" and I believe they were.
Posted by: Phoenix at October 2, 2005 09:47 PMMr. Allen. I am so glad to see you jumping in the fray, I did greatly enjoy the Birth Control discussion. Thank you for bothering to read my incoherent ramblings.
Honestly, everything I have previously said was in reference to municipal libraries, which are intended to serve the needs of the entire population. School libraries are an entirely different animal. My knee jerk reaction is to say essentially "Who cares? School libraries directly serve such a small portion of the population that it doesn't matter." That is a foolish and ignorant response (even I can see that after more than a second of thought on the topic). I think I am going to say that yes, it makes a difference if it is a public school library because education is mandated by the state. Children MUST be educated in some manner be it home school, private school, or public school. Due to monetary and/or time restrictions in households and varying availability of private schools public schools public schools are often the only available means of complying with state mandated education requirements. Conversely, it is in no way mandated that anyone ever enter a library, be it municipal or private. I do, however, retain my right to change my stance either in whole or in part based on new information, persuasive arguments, or even more time to "think on" the question.
Mr. Blandus-
So terribly sorry to have bothered you with my idiotic babble. When I first said I was "done with this" it was because you, the original poster, seemed to want to end the discussion. I understood your comment "perhaps the discussion should wind down. I'll trail off with this parting thought. . ." To mean it was last call for comments and my saying that I was "done with this" was merely intended to inform you that it was not my intent to continue to comment on a discussion that was no longer being held. I was trying to be courteous and assure you that I would not be filling your comments with my own, un-rebutted, view point. I was not trying to offend.
That said, I have only responded in this case because I was asked a direct question by Jake Allen. You rightfully pointed out that I should have researched this topic more thoroughly and used your link to the materials you take issue with, rather than viewing them in "the paper" (if you will, since books have no flesh to speak of). I have no doubt you used the same stringent research methods to look at Mice and the Chocolate Factory. Thank you for showing me the proper way to have an intelligent discussion.
As a last bit of (I believe) neutral perspective http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20051002/ts_latimes/thisilliteratebrazilianshomespeaksvolumes
Posted by: ~TheAmber at October 3, 2005 11:58 AMTerribly sorry to bother but to avoid misunderstandings when I said "As a last bit of (I believe) neutral perspective" I did not mean I consider MYSELF neutral. I was attempting to say briefly that the article offers some related perspective that is neutral.
I shall now shut my "loudmouth Troll" mouth.
Posted by: ~TheAmber at October 3, 2005 01:04 PMtheAmber,
Thank you. (for the courtesy, making no reference whatsoever to the state of your mouth).
Hugger - I'd like to engage further, but I am into big midterms this week. I hope my alter-ego Jake can follow up.
Posted by: Blandus at October 3, 2005 04:34 PMMr. Blandus,
Thank you for the courtesy of recognizing the legitimacy of my arguments. To speak for myself, I do not intend to assert that Christians should withdraw from society completely, or even at all, and respect your concern that such should result from my approach.
I am rather extremely concerned with the manner in which we ought to engage our culture--as the methods we have been wont to use in the past have not exactly met resulted in stunning successes.
Briefly, it seems to me that the lobbying, etc, into which we've poured so much money and effort, is itself one huge distraction from what we ought to be doing. The claims of the Christian Faith posit that if Christians live their lives properly, the world will be drawn to the Faith. And when I say "live life properly," I'm not speaking of some trite inanity which will excuse us from actually having to do anything. I'm saying it's high time we embrace the Cross in reality, get off our lazy bums and start getting our hands dirty in society. Had we the will, the Christian Church in America and around the world could itself right most of the wrongs we have thus far simply trusted government to fix. That being so, the fault for society's ills rests on our heads.
So far as I can see, at any rate.
Posted by: J.A. Cook at October 4, 2005 09:33 PMMr. Cook,
It does not sound like we are that far apart. I agree we need more actual living for Christ and less pompous moralizing (which is what, no doubt, many believe I have been doing here) from the average Christian.
I wonder what you mean by "get our hands dirty in society." Are you speaking more to social justice than social action? Why would a fair reading of my opposition to these books in our schools (again speaking as a participant in a representative democracy) not qualify for "getting my hands dirty"?
Posted by: Blandus Rex at October 6, 2005 01:44 PMDefine social justice/action. I don't object to any individual involvement in our representative democracy, but I am weary of the trned focusing so exclusively on the legal and public policy aspects of our society. There is more to it than that by far, and I can't quite see the generally defensive stance we so often take as "getting our hands dirty." Keeping immoral literature out of the public sphere will not stop (probably will scarcely even slow) the moral degeneration of our society. If we want to change things, we need to start personally convincing individuals that not only morality, but faith, and Christian faith at that, are important, and important not in the public sphere, but in private, in their hearts and homes. At which point morality and faith won't need to be injected into the public sphere--they will already be there, naturally.
Posted by: J.A. Cook at October 8, 2005 10:39 AM