Red State 'Values' Watch: Banning Books in 'Bama

Remove all ads!

Well, discussion is a thing pupils have to learn, better they do it in school. Any teacher will tell you that pupils actually are interested in divisive topics as it challenges them intellectually - and helps develop them ethically and morally.

Time and money is not wasted in preparing pupils for life.

 

The state has taken that mandate upon itself in making Education available to the public. Further, if the state allows this "Pro-Homosexual" literature to be taught, are they not catering to another special interest group? Further, the separation of church and state means that specific religious doctorines can't be taught in class. Doesn't this apply to other philosophical or moral stances?

I'm not opposed to discussing divisive issues, but first it must be in it's right place (keep it within the bounds of the course being taught), and second, there has to be a cut off point to allow other topics to be taught.

 

Gnarfflinger, you're aware that you're asking suggestive questions only? Besides, your mirror imaging is unconvincing. It isn't about serving one other special interest group - it is dealing with a topic of real life. Homosexuality is one of these topics. There are gays out there, just in case you didn't notice.

Censorship has never solved 'immoral' influence, rather it made the forbidden fruit more attracrtive. And anyway, when I read what American christian zealots consider as homosexual literature, I, like my fellow Europeans, usually shake my head in puzzlement anyway.
And worse, they don't stop by banning them from school, they take them out of the public libraries as well if they can - so the idea, that pupils could learn the stuff they are withheld in school in private if they want, isn't valid either.

Teenagehood is about identity and sexual identity. The issues of homosexuality, sexual education, abortion just like death penalty, human rights, environmental issues, democracy, religion and politics are important to be adressed. They are important for the pupils. They ask for these issues, because these are the issues that make school interesting to pupils.

It is very much preferrable to have discurses on such issues in the "safe lab" school under the moderation of a teacher dealing with the dissenting opinions of other pupils.

Divisive issues work best because they make a discussion lively. I daresay the basic rules of civilised discurse are as important today as ever.

Learning to dispute in schopol is ultimately helpful in learning to deal with complex issues. Later in life you have to do that every day. And anyone who goes and tells the pupils: "You don't need to know." is only withholding information from them. It's tutelage.

 

No, it doesn't. This topic is really about banning literature from public education. More accurately, a specific topic in literature that deals with sexual preference, because it offends religious sensibilities of some in our society. Many writers, such as Oscar Wilde, do this intentionaly. It is a part how they chose to use the art form.

But this is a live-wire issue right now in our society. Some believe that the last election actually turned on that one issue in many of the red states. But what if the next live-wire issue is adultery that offends religious minded people in Alabama? Do they take "Madame Bovary" off of their shelves? How about Canterbury Tales, because of the "Miller's Tale" or the "Good Wife of Bath?" Or the "Scarlet Letter."

Now, you brought up other philosophical or moral stances. Would they remove the "Odyessy" because of its worship of pagan gods? This may sound a bit over the top to you. But I'd be willing to bet that there are people in Alabama who would like to see all of the above titles banned from their schools for exactly the reasons I've stated.

 

Chandos, I'm not arguing a principle, just haggling on where the line is drawn. As Ragusa stated, Teenage years are where questions of Sexual Identity are dealt with. If you insist on discussing Homosexuality, then let all sides into the discussion--even Christianity. The "Red States" didn't start this problem, the founding fathers did when they argued the separation of Church and State. The Aetheists also pushed this further when they banned the teaching of religeous doctorine in the classroom.

I'm not calling for an outright ban, just want to leave immorality out of the public education system.

 

You don't solve anything by not discussing it at all because it is 'immoral'. When christian participation is your point, fine, add it to the content of that lesson and put it on the syllabus? It would be quite simply actually.

It isn't so that it hasn't happened yet because of resistance by the oh-so 'liberal' teachers.

It hasn't happened because it isn't wanted by the US right. The people pushing for the ban don't want christian participation - they don't want the topic in school at all. They aren't happy unless homosexuality as a topic is purged from the syllabus ...

PS: ... just like probably contraception or AIDS prevention, because as our poles will cheerfully tell you: straigt couples with no-sex-until-marriage philosophy are immune to AIDS

 

Since when is Homosexuality a religion?

If Homosexuality is a religion, is Heterosexuality a religion as well? (Dude, I wanna sign up for *that* church!)

And your basis for thinking Homosexuality is abnormal is...your religion? (Or rather, your interpretation of your religion.) Does your religion tell you that Homosexuality is a competing religion? Or do you have some scientific evidence that Homosexuality is abnormal? Or scientific evidence that Homosexuality is a religion? Or do you just have a cultural bias against it because everyone knows that boys that act a little feminine get beaten up in the schoolyard?

 

I am not stating that Homosexuality is a religion, but Religeous doctorines teach that it is immoral. It also tewches that sexual relations outside legal and lawful marriage are also immoral. I am simply stating that if Homosexuality is to be brought into the Classroom, then arguements against it should be brought in as well. If they don't want the Bible used in Classroom education, then don't try to rationalize immoral behaviour either.

Also, I'm not saying that those who abstain from sex until marriage and refrain from adultery are *immune* to AIDS or HIV, just that they have a greatly decreased risk of contracting it.

 

Well, homosexuality is abnormal. 3-4% of the population, max, practice it. It would probably be less if surveys didn't count teen experimentation. It's also, quite clearly, physically unnatural. The purpose of sex is procreation, last I heard. Homosexual intercourse satisfies no reproductive need.

All this about "immorality" is silly - schools don't teach morality, that I know of. The entire point is invalid.

Well, aren't they? If one doesn't have sex before marriage, use illegal IV drugs, or be born with it (which precludes marriage, as HIV-positive children almost always die before their tenth year of life), then one won't have AIDS.

Chandos - I wish they would ban The Scarlet Letter... gah, that was a mind-numbing book. Aside from the dullness of the read, it also had the flaw of lack of truly full character development, in my opinion.

 

Sources, please. Every reputable source I've heard from estimates it at about 10% of the population.

Interesting. Given that (non-sentient) animals do engage in homosexual intercourse, how is it unnatural? It may be a genetic anomaly (or not), but it's clearly natural.

Er...neither does sex involving any sort of contraception. So what?

 

You're citing the Kinsey report for that 10%. Read up on it, and how it was created, and you'll realize how totally absurd it is... There haven't been any terrifically accurate studies done, but I've heard estimates, and based upon the numbers of openly gay people I've met (which are the ones who one would count as homosexual in a report), I would say that 3-4% is reasonably accurate. Nothing like the 10% you've said, but maybe going up to 7%...

When I say 'unnatural' I mean assuming that sex is for procreation, and not pleasure. Read the paragraph as a whole for context.

 

If Morality is to be left out of schools, then please don't include teachings that legitimize things that we consider to be immoral.

I would have guessed that homosexuality had a higher incidence than either figure cited based on how big a deal this is. If so, then why can't the 90 to 97% of us that are straight just tell the rest of them to sit down and shut the f*** up?

 

Because democracy does not work this way. Minorities, even social ones, have rights that can't be denied.

 

But where is that line drawn? Homosexuality one day, Drugs the next? What if the curriculum taught that drug use is acceptable, and proposed literature that glorified drug users? There's a lot more than 10% of the country that uses illegal drugs...

 

So homosexuality and drug abuse is the same kind of thing? Wicked, nasty, evil thing. Well, we know your opinion now.

 

Exactly Gnarfflinger, where is that line drawn, if those books would get banned for 'glorifying' homosexuality, why not ban complete books from the bible because those 'glorify' murder, genocide, mass-rape and slavery?
That is partly what is bothering me about morality in America, there is nothing wrong with violence, blood, chopped of limbs, war, etc, but one mere mention of a homosexual in a book and it is the apocalypse coming, even one tit on tv and people ask themselves what the world is coming to.
I wonder if Nietzsche meant this with the advent of nihilism.

 

Ban Tom Sawyer for glorifying skipping school and painting fences! Insidious!

Ban Oliver Twist for glorifying being an orphan!

Ban Othello for glorifying jealousy! We won't stand for this insidious literature in our schools.

Ban everything! Now!

 

That's the spirit, HB!

But wait, why are we all freaking out about these dusty 19th C tomes anyway, when there are so many more recent cultural products that are sure to drive people down the path of wickedness:

Ban all the Britneys, Christines, and Spice Girls, as they promote pre-marital sex, show off their tummies in public, and are tools!

Ban all the Half Lifes, Dooms, Quakes, and Unreals, as they promote mass murder and mayhem; we all know what the Columbine kids were playing, don't we!

Ban the BG series and all other CRPGs, as they not only promote violence and an unhealthy obsession with romance mods, but everyone knows DnD promotes Satanism!

Ban every movie for teens that doesn't star Kirk Cameron, as they all promote pre-marital sex, provocative dressing, and materialism!

(Whew, I feel much better now.)

 

It's a question of where the line is to be drawn. I want Homosexuality on the banned side of the line. Censorship was called a slippery slope earlier in this thread, but so is inclusion. When you start to include some things, then you have to keep including things until all is allowed. The problem is that you won't let Religeous doctorine in the school, then leave out this other **** too.

 

The problem with religious doctrine in schools is another one of drawing the line. Which religions to include? There are so many. Which sub-faction of which religion? What a nightmare it would be trying to sort out which one is dealing with the one true god. It's all too hard and will only lead to fights. My highly biased opinion is that kids should learn all the NORMAL stuff that I got taught at school, like long division, proper nouns, the periodic table, and how a volcano works.