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

Remove all ads!

I did not intend to imply that homosexuality is in any way obscene; I simply meant to demonstrate that abridging the freedom of speech is nothing new, and the words of the First Amendment, in all practicality, can only be taken with a few grains of salt. That's all I'm going to say. I need sleep.

 

That's the rub, isn't it? When you get right down to it, the constitution is ink on a page

As for your points regarding the XIV vs I amendments, well, I'm reasonably certain I'm correct, but I expect you're reasonably certain you're correct, too.

Second opinion, please? I'm too lazy to research on my own

 

Personally, I'd take it with a whole damn salt mine......
No, it's not new. Doesn't mean it's RIGHT.

 

Yes, well it's true that there are some for whom the Constitution has little meaning these days. And while it is true that there are practical (and reasonable) restraints on freedom of speech, federal law almost always trumps state law. So, like it or not, the Constitution is the law of the land. But for those who dislike the freedoms many of us enjoy, which the Constitution protects, there is always North Korea, or Iran. It is my understanding that public flogging is the punishment for practicing homosexuality in some places in the Middle East. But I'm not sure what it is for reading or writing about it.

BTW, it was Thomas Jefferson who first suggested the Bill of Rights (who was in France at that time) to James Madison, who was one of the key framers of the document.

[ December 06, 2004, 16:28: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

This issue, the way I see it, is about what to include and what to exclude from public education. The State wants to keep Homosexuality out of that arena. I don't think they want to speak against it, they just want it left out entirely. This topic is a landmine, with extreme opinions on either side. This forum is a place for this, but the State of Alabama is arguing that the classroom is not.

 

It's not just about homosexuality, but censorship and where this may be heading. It could be a case of homosexuality today, evolution tomorrow, J.D. Salinger the next day, Voltaire the day after...

 

Isn't it about evolution already? For a good number of Americans the theory of evolution is sinful and they believe in creationism and want to see Darwin banned from school - and have iirc succeeded in some cases already.

Iirc in some states, class issues are left out already because they are 'unnecessary inflammatory' and 'open to potential exploitation by partisans' - and bright hours like Mother Jones fight in the workers movement and achievements of trade unions against unfair labor conditions and exploitation are left out of social history - while history is generally shortened for 'budged reasons' - and people grow up totally unconscious of their past.

It's indeed all about censorship and the slippery slope. People have to be educated to be self-consciius and critical individuals who are able to make their own judgement - but for that they need knowledge and information, and not what some fundamentalists think they should know or not know.

 

My theory is, again, proven! Here it is..

People. Are. Incredibly. Stupid.

This kind of thing always starts small. If these pieces of legislation et cetera are not stamped small, they WILL get worse. What happens to the child raised by a homosexual couple? (something I am personally against anyway, for the simple reason that it is bad for the child's psychological development, and that anyone who doesn't put this first first shouldn't be a parent anyway)

This is what could result as legislation gets harsher.

Banned from having friends over (who would meet the guardians)
Forbidden to discuss family
Segregated from other children
Removed from school
Have to carry pentagram, be sent to "reeducation" camps?

This kind of thing can be only bad.

 

Well, I don't quite think Darwin/evolution has been banned from any public schools. Yet. At the moment the enemies of evolution are pushing that evolution be treated as a contested theory, with something called "Intelligent Design" offered as a competing theory. Nevermind that "Intelligent Design" isn't technically a theory (that is, it's completely untestable and therefore unscientific).

It brings to mind some of the protestations of wounded Red Staters: they're sick of Blue Staters telling them they're stupid. Well, one solution would be to not behave so stupidly...

 

I think intelligent design is funny, it simply says that since everything exists and is damn complicated and such something must have created it. The funny part is that the something which must have created everything would need to exist and be darn complicated as well and would thus also need to have been created by something and on and on it goes. Infinite design would be a better name.

 

Learn about Intelligent Design! Enter the "Creationist Zone!"

They have a website.

Warning: it crashed my browswer

 

Perhaps creation could then be described as an "Infinity Engine."

 

Let's be clear here; these people are banning the display of any kind of homosexuality within the state education system for the simple reason that they don't like homosexuality. In fact, that is largely stated by the proponent in the article at the top of the page.

This is bigotry, pure and simple, and I condemn it as such on those terms. I don't feel any need to resort to 'slippery slope' arguments here - this is a morally offensive action in of itself.

[ December 06, 2004, 22:32: Message edited by: Dranalis DeAealth ]

 

The problem is that you need to have some things excluded from the classroom. There are some that argue that Religion should be excluded based on separation of church and state. There are some that don't want Homosexuality in the classroom. They are deemed unnecessary and inflamatory. Thay have that right.

We need to censor some things, but where do you draw the line?

 

To whom are you referring? The teachers? the school administration? the board? the politicians? the general public? the students? all of the above? Or do the religious groups have the right to control what students think and learn in the classroom? Who has the RIGHT to decide for everyone else?

 

And why should that be? Because we have too much time on our hands? Nothing better to do? What is so great about censorship that we just have to do it?

 

I don't think that anyone here is trying to say that we should teach anyone else that "homosexuality is acceptable." Only that it is an acceptable lifestyle for some, or that it is just a fact of life for some people in our society.

Also, as an English teacher, I would consider it censorship if I could not teach a classic like Moby Dick because Melville may be suggesting that Queequeg and Ishmeal are more than just "friends." There so much eccentricity in that magnificent book that such a case could (and has) been made for that theory. Although sometimes a "harpoon" really is just a harpoon, even in literature.

[ December 08, 2004, 07:06: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

From Chandos the Red:

To whom are you referring? The teachers? the school administration? the board? the politicians? the general public? the students? all of the above? Or do the religious groups have the right to control what students think and learn in the classroom? Who has the RIGHT to decide for everyone else?

I was referring to the State's governing body for education. They are the ones responsible for the administration of education in the state, so they are the ones who have to make that decision. By what authority is that decision being made for them?

@ Darkthorne: We are told that we can't push morality in the classroom, then why should we be free to push some other forms of belief? If you want to include Homosexuality, then include the opposition to the issue--Christian moral objections. If that's not allowed, then don't push Homosexuality.

@ Chandos the Red: You call the potential for the banning of Moby Dick an over-reaction. I'll give you that one, but I don't want Public Education resources (money and time) used to teach something so morally divisive that even more time (and thus) money would be wasted in debate.

(Edit: More stuff to say)

[ December 08, 2004, 06:11: Message edited by: Gnarfflinger ]

 

Again, we have the politicians deciding what is "acceptable literature" regarding the topic of homosexuality (government censorship). The consitutionality of this issue may have to be decided by the Supreme Court.

Gnarfflinger - But it's not just "your money," as you seem to claim, but also your neighbor's money, and he may not agree that the same censorship rules should apply to his kid's education. He may see the value of "Dorian Gray" beyond its "homosexual aspects," as many have. To compound the problem many of the politicians may never have read such books for themselves, which they wish to hide from innocent eyes.

Thus, they would have to rely on another layer of government bureaucracy to "interprate" the literature for everyone else. Sounds like you may be spending more money on the "issue" than you are saving, and in the process expanding the power and scope of government. I hope they hire first-rate literary critics for the job.

We have not even started on the problem of religious leaders demanding that certain titles be removed from libraries. But that would violate separation of Chruch and State, since the state cannot dictate which religous dogmas it's citizens must conform to. What about books written by homosexuals? Would we have to take Socrates out of our libraries also?