When I was very young, our household library included a Vatican-approved volume about the lives of various saints, and it was one of the books that helped me learn how to read.
Perhaps as appropriate for the historical eras during which they lived, the lives of these Saints were rather short and unfailingly violent. Each of the chapters ended with graphic descriptions of how the subject was martyred, and many drawings provided ample visual reinforcement.
We weren’t a religious family, to be sure, but I can recall no qualms about letting me peruse this book. After all, it was approved by the Church.
I can’t remember having nightmares, although I occasionally was scared. I recall thinking that saintliness sure did involve a great deal of pain, suffering and death ... and that I'd rather be a cowboy, instead.
Here’s a story from yesterday’s Tribune:
Greater Clark keeps scary book; Grandmother tried to get book series pulled from school libraries, by Joseph Lord (News-Tribune).
This summer (Beth) Dorsey launched a campaign to ban the “Scary Stories” series from Greater Clark elementary schools, but her effort was killed after school leaders decided to keep the books …
… Dorsey said her two granddaughters had read books from the series and since had suffered from fear and nightmares, and other students had similar reactions.
Her 6-year-old granddaughter, Tiffany Svoboda, has been “imprisoned by fear” after reading one of the books from Utica Elementary’s library …
… She said the books also go against Christian values she is teaching her grandchildren.
“This is against everything we believe,” Dorsey said.
If censorship is a Christian value, then I hope I’m not alone in feeling somewhat “imprisoned” by it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
It doesn't sound like a "fall-back" excuse, but a well-conditioned evangelical Christian attack on Western literary tradition, including the tradition of gory scary stories as moral tales for kids.
It never ceases to amaze me how frequently shallow, narrow-minded individuals seek to impose their moral views upon others by restricting access to literature. It is clear that those who strive to censor are typically doing so out of fear and ignorance.
I am not personally familiar with the books at issue, but I would become enraged if a self-appointed, moralistic critic were successful in having them banned because she deemed them to be "inappropriate" in light of her world view. Books of all sorts enable our children to dream, to develop and expand their imaginations, and to learn to think for themselves.
In my opinion, we must always be on guard and ready to rebuff the efforts of those who would seek to censor.
NAC,
you know censorship is not a Christian value. This woman, as a parent/guardian, should have reviewed the book first if there were concerns about the content.
It is not the public schools job. If certain books in the public schools are required reading, then families with objections should be able to opt out and choose another in its place.
Let's not place the faults of some on Christianity.
Since we are on this topic, it may be of benefit to expain the difference between being censored (that's a first amendment issue) and being censured.
Censoring this or any book, public library or a person means you are stopping them from saying what they would like to say, reading what they would like to read, or keeping books on shelves they choose to keep. In this regard, they are censored.
Censure is responding to something that is done or said and making a moral judgment on it.
When a person or institution uses their liberty to speak, write, read, or stock certain things in an immoral and inappropriate way, another person has the right (liberty) to censure them and state it was wrong or immoral.
There continues to be confusion between having a right and doing what is right.
Having a right to do something--a liberty to do something—does not exhaust the moral conversation about that particular action.
Using censorship out of context seems to suggest that the highest appeal to morality relates to rights or liberties. That is moral relativism.
We may have the right to be totally despicable as a person, but retreating into rights and rights language does not absolve you of the offense or of your bad moral judgment.
Your comment HB "If certain books in the public schools are required reading, then families with objections should be able to opt out and choose another in its place." begs the question - when science is the subject Christians want to "opt-out" of - does it serve society to allow that?
What happens if I declare that math is against my religion?
You become the 3rd District CM, of course.
The whole thing still reminds me of 1930's and 40's Germany. We in this country have the freedom to choose what to read.
This world is full of religous fanatics who have their own views and rules in what they think "God" wants.
Live and experience life.
Bottom line to me is, parents are responsible for what their kids read/do/you fill in the blank.
Parents (and apparently grandparents, too) are too quick to try to make someone else responsible for the education, supervision, moral training and upbringing of their children.
New Albany Annie has it right.
Parents/grandparents have gotten into the habit of abrogating their responsibilities to the school system.
Parents should be taking an active role in their kid's education and when a potential conflict arises, I have not met a teacher yet unwilling to work with reasonable parents.
As far as the question on science; I agree with ceece's response.
We do a grave disservice to our society when we allow it to be uneducated and unable to compete in the global economy. Science will continue to power the technological world we now live in, so it's akin to being Amish to me to "avoid" education, especially science education. Books don't harm people - TV does.
Post a Comment