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

Remove all ads!

So leave it to the normal stuff and leave all the other stuff out. Once you start including other stuff, then the real headaches begin. Alabama really does have the right idea. School has it's mandate. Maybe they should focus on that...

 

Huh, I neglected this topic, as I had to muddle in the other two threads. Now that BTA took all the fun out of them by stopping the emerging flame wars, I have to come back here.

So, since I spoke of BTA, you'll forgive me for jumping back to the top of this page:

Not that I'm aware of. There's no noteworthy censorship, neither in the United States nor in Germany, nor in the rest of the western world. And a good thing it is. There's a difference between censoring things (as in: prohibit them and don't acknowledge their existence) and simply not supporting things with financial means. Or allowing them into the syllabus.

Intelligent Design is a droll theory without use or foundation. How does it compare to Homosexuality - which is a fact of life? The world - apart from a solid resistanca in Poland and West Lorne - does not believe Homosexuality to be a defect, nor to be a choice. It's not a disease. It's us. It is damn human. Accordingly, if there are classes covering Sexuality as an issue, Homosexuality should be included there. Morality of any couleur has never been nor will it ever be part of biology.

Therefore, your idea, Gnarfflinger, that we should either have Christianity and Homosexuality or none of them at School is ridiculous. They are not playing in the same league, they are not addressing the same issues. And don't give me "But yes, Chrisitanity addresses Homosexuality, it condemns it!" If you understood any of the above, you'll see that this is not what I'm talking about.

I am aware that much of what I've said has been covered before. I just couldn't bear to see you post "I want to draw the line, I want to draw the line!" every other hour without even addressing the arguments brought against you.

And thanks, chevalier, I can do without you telling me that I obviously only accept a reason that I consider to be favouring my cause.

 

Doh. Right you are.

 

Given that adolescence is one of the two peak times for suicide, and homosexual adolescents are more likely than their heterosexual peers to top themselves, i think it is irresponsible for a supposedly beneficial public institution to be acting to vilify homosexuality. These kids probably have it tough enough as it is.

 

And those who could care less about it.

 

From Darkthorne: The world - apart from a solid resistanca in Poland and West Lorne - does not believe Homosexuality to be a defect, nor to be a choice. It's not a disease. It's us. It is damn human. Accordingly, if there are classes covering Sexuality as an issue, Homosexuality should be included there. Morality of any couleur has never been nor will it ever be part of biology.

As BTA pointed out, 11 states voted AGAINST same sex marriage in the last election. That sounds like a pretty solid resistance to me.

Further, The boilogically deterministic approach you take to the topic directly contradicts the Moral background I come from. I believe that we are given freedom to choose with a divine responsibility to choose that which is right. By this, homosexuality and addiction are temptations which are stronger to some than to others.

BTA also has made my point better than I seem to have done: The so called "ban" was not a ban of homosexuality; it was a ban on promotion or recognition of homosexuality as an "acceptable lifestyle". So, ostensibly it would be perfectly fine to teach about homosexuality in a sexuality course as long as it is not promoted as acceptable.

 

The main themes of the above titles do not promote homosexuality in an overt way, at least by a traditional interpretation. Now, that can be subject to revision, depending upon who is doing the revising. So, I'm not sure what you are arguing here.

If an instructor stands before a group of students, and says: "all of you should accept homosexuality because we are supposed to be a tolerant society," and in this instance, draws upon the authority of writers such as Wilde to augment this stance, then I am inclined to agree with you - that it is coercion.

But that has not been the argument here. They wish to ban books that deal with homosexuality in an incidental way. That books have their own reality, or "truth" is a given in the art form. In fact, in some ways that is what makes it an art form. Thus, books that have a treatment of a reality that contains homosexuality will offend some religious minded people and will have to be banned. This is coercion from the other side. That is what many of us here are arguing against. I suggest that a close reading of the article in the topic's opening link will prove that a book that contains even a direct reference to homosexualiy in even a neutral stance can be banned. You seem to be searching some middle ground in the Alabama legislation that is not there.

 

Ultimately, the State of Alabama has the final say in that matter. I am not familiar with the works that Chandos has sited (I recognize the titles, but that's about it), so cannot comment on them specifically. Perhaps he had the right idea of letting experts on literature make those decisions based on clear and explicit guidelines.

But I would also caution that the potential introduction of Homosexuality into a classroom situation may derail the intent of including these books in curriculum. Care must also be taken that homosexuality not be promoted against these directives.

Perhaps the removal may be the simplest means of keeping this topic out of discussion on state funded time. It may not be acceptable to some, but ultimately, that's for the state to decide...

 

It depends, the Supreme Court could choose to decide such an issue. It would be tricky, becuase federal guidelines could trump the Alabama legislation. But then again, the Court could choose not to take such a case and leave it up to each state to decide the extent of state government attacks on free speech and freedom of thought.

 

Po9int taken BTA, but it isn't so that all opinions are equally valid.

When some sorry blonde foams "Liberals are traitors for whom hanging is too good, and they plot evil and are behind everything that harms the US" that is not as equally valid as "Liberals are entitled entrance to heaven for their inherited goodness and they love the US and are to praise for giving America countless blessings".

A lie is a lie and a folly is a folly and a different point of view and opinion isn't justified just by being held.

I am entirely aware of that my argument is sort of self-defeating considering your argument but I wanted to show up that this egalitarian view of yours doesn't lead you anywhere.

It ends "we agree to disagree" and "everybody is entitled his opinion". That wouldn't be an appropiate way to deal with my example IMO.

 

But it helps!

 

Even at risk to sound cynical I'd rather guess it went that way: Mabe in some places people have made what we call in german a "Kuhhandel", a give-and-take deal.

Like: "Ok, let's give <unspoken part #1: this nonsense dubbed> 'creative design' some place <unspoken part #2: and these ... ... will, hopefully, be quiet and let us teach some real stuff in peace - better that than their constant howling and shield wielding on the schoolyard, not to mention the sermons ... ... and the constant obstruction with the budget on the respective comittees ... > "

A little bit like spraying the lawn with literature to keep the rednecks away if I remember that cartoon rightly ...

 

Hell, I wish I'd that known sooner...

 

The State is trying to limit the amount of give to this one lobby group. I still say they have this right.

Maybe I'm an abberation: A redneck who actually reads...

 

Gnarff,
the creationist lobby group is a disturbing influence for a serious school teacher who wants to actually teach his pupils serious science in school. These christian fundamentalists only make up some 15% of the US population, and not more than 25% of the total US christians. They are a loud and driven minority.

I didn't mean to pun you with my reference to rednecks, it was more a metaphor for a measure that may keep away disturbing influences.

I wanted to refute the point that the fact that creationism is actually taught means it is taken serious by the teachers.

Creationsim is not science (a nice letter to the editor from virginia), it's an article of faith, it's about religion and about people reading the bible literally (what qualifies them as fundamentalists) - but then - why teach that in science?

The difference between science and creationism is with a grain of salt

• Science: These are the facts - what conclusions can we draw from them?
• Creationism: This is the conclusion - what facts can we find to support it?

Creationism argues deductive and starts with the axiom that the bible can't fail as it is HIS word. Science argues inductive and searches for facts to observe first.
With a little help: In the deductive method, logic is the authority. If a statement follows logically from the axioms of the system, it must be true. In the scientific method, observation of nature is the authority. If an idea conflicts with what happens in nature, the idea must be changed or abandoned.

About 1600 A.D., it became apparent to several thinkers - Galileo Galilei in Italy, Francis Bacon in England, Tycho Brahe in Denmark, and others - that there were no subtle logical errors in Aristotle's use of the deductive method. The problem was that the deductive method, while wildly successful in mathematics, did not fit well with scientific investigations of nature.

It is not that creationists can't make logical conclusions, it's just that their logical efforts are simply are pointless for science - how logical however they are. They try to repeat a poorer variant of St. Thomas Aquinas' proof of God, some 750 years later, over and over again. They still think in the beautyful and venerable tradition of scholastics, and have entirely missed what the age of enlightment was all about.

That in some places, probably solely in the US, creationism is taught in science despite that, tells me it isn't about science but about a pragmatic decision:
It is simply easier to cave in to the creationist's demands than to suffer their persistent and annoying interference, or worse, to have to exclude evolution in biology from the syllabus, or exclude some pupils from that sinful content
My sisters are teachers and I get a glimpse on what mayhem crazed parents are able to create when they are driven enough.

It's most likely just a concession to the whackos, to eventually be left in peace.

[ December 16, 2004, 11:30: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Oooh, the creationist debate rears it's nutty head again? I must say, Ragusa, that I agree with the points you have made so eloquently above. The smilie was made especially for the use to which you put it!

 

Doesn't the Theory of Evolution rely upon certain assumptions? If so, then why should one set of assumptions be considered acceptable when the assumptions involved with Creationism be unacceptable?

From a Creationist perspective, the similarities between particular creatures are by design so that they can thrive in a particular climate and ecology. Evolution assumes that these were factors in them developing that way. Again, that's another can of worms that should require caution in openning.

Evolution, as it has been explained to me on another site, contradicts much of biblical teaching. I believe that we'll get all the answers in the after life, I also suspect that there may be elements that are right in Evolution, but not the whole theory. Also, the beliefs on Creationism will be set straight, and the questions of how it was done will be answered definitively.

But for now, the Education system should focus on the skills that we will need to function in society. That means that topics like Homosexuality should be left out of public education in favour of more practical things.