Those Who Ban Books Find Strength In Numbers

usatoday.com:

Shortly after the fall semester began this year, Wesley Scroggins, a parent of three in Republic, Mo., publicly criticized the local school district for carrying books that he described as soft pornography.

"We've got to have educated kids, and we've got to be a moral people," Scroggins said then. "I've been concerned for some time what students in the schools are being taught."

Read the whole story: usatoday.com

Comments

[Slate 1947]

05:40 PM on 12/06/2010

A moralistic crusade to ban books they find objectionable, while their children sit in front of a TV set watching people kill each other. That's okay though, as long as the show doesn't contain sex or fill their childs head with science, they won't be corrupted by the evils of reality.

[glockman]

06:45 PM on 12/04/2010

Did anyone click on the map to see some of the banned books??

Good christ, Hemingway? Anne Frank? Toni Morrison?

[glockman]

06:42 PM on 12/04/2010

""We've got to have educated kids, and we've got to be a moral people,"

Apparently his education was less than stellar.

""I've been concerned for some time what students in the schools are being taught."

How about you concern yourself with your own children, and not all others?

[carmemirandashat]

12:01 PM on 12/03/2010

There is a developing new market for Popeil's "Pocket Beach", where the book-banning crowd can carry their sand around to stick their heads in. This way, they can avoid the reality that we do not live in Ozzie-and-Harrietville anymore. Or, to be a little more current, Gary Ross' Pleasantville.

[palisades02]

11:42 PM on 12/02/2010

Well I have my Holiday shopping list. Every Book banned will be bought and given out as Holiday gifts.

[SF TKF]

03:23 PM on 12/02/2010

Cretins, philistines, and fundies. Oh, my!

[LaurieAnn]

06:16 PM on 12/02/2010

True.  And those are the exact type of folks who always gang up on others to take away rights.

[RobinSeattle]

10:58 PM on 12/02/2010

Religion means never having to mind one's own business.

[edisnuts]

02:20 PM on 12/02/2010

so , how about this site deleting comments and banning those who disagree with it from commenting?

[GraceNotes]

04:52 PM on 12/02/2010

We have to find a way to disagree with something or someone without becoming abusive.

[JQP 1970]

11:12 AM on 12/03/2010

So, how about that First Amendment being a restraint on government, not on private businesses?

[raven119]

11:48 AM on 12/02/2010

America will continue to dumb down until we teach our kids only two things: 1.) Men and dinosaurs lived in harmony and 2.) Ignorance is power.

[RobinSeattle]

10:07 PM on 12/02/2010

Richard Hostadter already has the second one covered:
http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Intellectualism-American-Life-Richard-Hofstadter/dp/0394703170

And Erich Fromme is also worth reading in that connection:
http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Intellectualism-American-Life-Richard-Hofstadter/dp/0394703170

[MarcEdward]

10:53 AM on 12/02/2010

Proud to see the great state of North Carolina is NOT on that map.
This is evolution in action.
The weak minded will raise children who cannot think for themselves, and these people will make good workers for the children of people who can think for themselves.
Go ahead, doom your kids.

[SF TKF]

03:24 PM on 12/02/2010

Sadly, the weak-minded are already among us, and they're allowed to vote (support for Palin pretty much proves this).

[Atomicjim]

11:31 PM on 12/04/2010

And, worse yet, they are allowed to hold public office and run corporations.

[goijra]

07:43 AM on 12/02/2010

Banning any book is despicable. If you don't want your child to read a particular work then perform your "responsibilities" as a parent. However to try to ban any particular work, be it fiction or non-fiction, only points out your failure as a parent to instill "your" values. It says more about your parenting skills than perhaps you care to admit.

[RobinSeattle]

10:47 PM on 12/02/2010

'However one may sing the praises of those who by their virtue either defend or increase the glory of their country, their actions only affect worldly prosperity and within narrow limits. But the man who sets fallen learning on its feet (and this is almost more difficult than to originate it in the first place) is building up a sacred and immortal thing and not serving one province alone, but all peoples and all generations." (Erasmus)

[Lisa Shields]

01:17 AM on 12/02/2010

I am reminded of something that happened a decade back, when I was working at a public library.
A woman wrote to the county, to demand that a children's book be pulled from the system. And it nearly was...until they noticed that she didn't live in our county. She didn't have a library card. She wasn't a patron. Her taxes didn't pay for the system. But she wanted to control what the people who DID read.

I always worry about the book burners.
They fear that people "will get ideas".
No dears...that's called thoughts...and they can work wonders.

[Joseph J Schuler]

12:31 AM on 12/02/2010

The only obscenity I recognize is censorship.

[Karen McCaughan]

11:58 PM on 12/01/2010

Can we do a correlative study to see if the states with the most bannings are also trying to get Intelligent Design added to the curriculum? And show the religion? And political affiliation?

Picture red states: no books, high pregnancy rates, and little clue about science.

[c-tom]

08:43 PM on 12/01/2010

I can't seem to find which books Mr Scroggins objected to. Isn't it possible the books he disliked were trash and should be kept out of the schools. Ayn Rand's books are on some of my local schools reading lists and I would not object to them being called "soft pornography".

[GraceNotes]

10:47 AM on 12/02/2010

I think the book Mr. Scroggins objected to was a young adult novel called Speak by Laurie Halse Anderson. The main character is a young girl who is raped and becomes silent.

[RobinSeattle]

10:57 PM on 12/02/2010

The problem with censorship like that which you describe is that one allows self-appointed third parties to determine what gets read or discussed in the marketplace of ideas. The nut of the truth is that everyone acts in his own self-interest and therefore to validate censorship is to permit others to impose their peculiar interests on you.

Rand's books are exceedingly badly written, but they shouldn't be banned just because certain passages might be a bit racy or her ideas are Nietzsche with a lobotomy. In an individualistic society such as America's we should allow the individual to have access to all ideas and decide on one's own which are viable, credible, etc and which are not. People are not forced to read any book that may be on a library's shelves. So I would suggest to parents that it is up to you to raise your kids and not third parties when it comes to dealing with ideas.

[c-tom]

11:41 PM on 12/02/2010

"People are not forced to read any book that may be on a library's shelves." But students are forced to read certain books and some of the choices made for them are questionable. When my daughter was in junior and senior high I never objected to the required readings because she didn't like to read and getting her to read any book regardless of its literary merits was a good thing.
I personally think that a teacher that would require Ayn Rand is a priori a bad teacher, but into each childhood some bad teachers must fall and learning to survive them is a good life lesson,

[Yoda]

08:39 PM on 12/01/2010

And H uffPost is doing a great job with its own cens0rship. Watch how long this comment would last.