Grady, I agree with you that certain reading material may be unsuitable for certain children, but on the other hand I think that these kids are the exception, rather than the rule. You are correct that there are some works of literature unsuitable for the classroom, but in this case these people are way out of bounds on that count.

Nothing Ray Bradbury wrote could be construed as obscene by any but the most puritanical of judges, and even then only on the basis of the occasional expletive. And let's be honest with ourselves, people use those words. The kids have heard them. And I could sit here and yell them all day without harming a thing except maybe my vocal chords.

The books (fictional and otherwise) read in schools have been deemed by accredited educators as containing information not only suitable for but valuable to developing minds. The kids aren't reading random garbage. Maybe parents should have the option of keeping their kids out of certain lessons, but they have no legal or moral right to prevent the whole class from learning on the basis of their bizarre personal behavioral strictures. And to be frank, the idea that a parent would go so far in foisting their own moral system upon the child as to censor their choice of reading material is pretty upsetting for me.



[edit on 7-10-2006 by The Parallelogram]

Grady, have you read Fahrenheit 451?

There's nothing inappropriate for a high school audience in that book. It's not about flowers and puppy dogs, but it's not a hard-driving expletive-ridden filth-fest either.

The subject matter that the book deals with is so important, and so timeless, I don't see the logic in allowing a couple of freaks to remove it from the reading list for personal reasons.

If they want to be all about 'clean' words and upright behavior that adheres to their strict framework of egotistical expectations, I suggest they leave civilization and start a colony in the desert with other like-minded wierdos. I don't have any problem with them determining for themselves what is acceptable, but they must not be allowed to set the standard for the rest of us.

It's infuriating to be at the mercy of people whose whole existence spits in the face of logic, reason, and good sense. They're living in a fantasy world, and I don't think it's well-advised to give them decision-making power over our corporeal existence, at least not until they prove themselves capable of understanding it.

Is this a possibility?

These folk know the rebellious nature of teens; thus by proposing banning F451, kids will flock to this book, read it and become sophisticated and eventually start reading the likes of Kurt Vonnegut, James Joyce etc and become critical, thinking adults. Eventually going on to read [gasp] "Tropic of Cancer" and "Last Exit to Brooklyn".

I doubt this though; probably fundies, afraid of any type of thinking that conflicts with their world view.

It must be a personal hell to live in fear of IDEAS because ideas have a nasty habit of sneeking up on you and making you feel uncomfortable. Oh the horror!

[edit on 7-10-2006 by whaaa]

I can't wait for this girl to get to college where she'll probably read Last Exit to Brooklyn and suffer a massive fatal heart attack on the spot.



If we want to talk about age-appropriate reading material, Fahrenheit 451 is warm milk compared to the whisky of Last Exit. I'm not even sure that anybody should be reading that horrible, horrible book, but you know what, I remember it because it was impactful and shocking and gripping - good writing prompts a visceral, emotional reaction.

Bradbury came to speak at my school years ago, and he was a hit with the students. Nice guy, great writer - it really sucks that people who can barely put two words together have the gall to challenge his work.

Nothing is stopping that girl from cloistering herself in her attic and reading nothing but children's picture books. She has the power of decision over her own future. What she does not and must not have, is the power of decision over OUR future.



[edit on 7-10-2006 by WyrdeOne]

I think I did read the book many years ago. In fact, now that I think about it, I'm certain that I did. I read it so that I could understand the movie, which lost me very early on.

However, my comments were not meant to be a critique of the book, but of the right of people to have some control over what their children are exposed to.

The fact is that the book will not be banned, regardless of the outcome of this case. It might be taken off a reading list or it might be removed from a school library, but anyone who wants to read it will still be able to find it and do so.

That is my point. Maybe the man and his daughter are wrong. I don't remember enough about the book to say, but calling them less than human for exercising their rights of dissent is very un-ATS, in my opinion.

The girl was 15
the father admitted he had not read the book when he filed the complaint.
when asked after the complaint, he looked thru it to find offenses with words like "cigarettes" and talking about god, and taking gods name in vain....

the district supervisor stated that the book was chosen for its topic, and not it "objectionable content".

the father talks as if he could benefit by reading more himself, and yet, supports his daughters right to ignorance by religious restraint.

these people seem to have the strict dictrine of extremist muslims...
religion before education...
I suggest if the schools ciriculum is to be hampered by one parents choice, that perhaps they need to allow this girl to be home schooled by her father, so that he can protect her delicate ears...

since this is an independant school, is just more reason that they should show them the door...

it is like "no child left behind" except it is "all children left behind by religious control" and that is just wrong...

the supervisor in this case, did allow her to read a different book, so it solved this,

but IMHO they should have said "she is always welcome to not attend here, if you dont approve of curriculum...

If it offends you, dont read/see/listen to it. How hard is that to understand?

The religious freaks around the world really crack me up.

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
but IMHO they should have said "she is always welcome to not attend here, if you dont approve of curriculum...

Unless, of course, she attends public school. All children in the US are required to attend school until a certain age, usually 16, somewhere. We even allow illegal immigrants to go to our taxpayer funded schools.

The point still remains that the issue was never to ban the book, but that the book offended the sensibilties of the child and her father defended her position. And he did so without blowing up themselves or anyone else.

The problem here is that some are offended that the religious should have any rights and that when they do express the desire to have their rights respected in ways that are entirely legal, they are vilified.

For some "taking the lord's name in vain" is a big issue. Some get mad and kill people. Some just go through the proper channels to express their concerns.

If the story contained the kinds of elements that those here contend, the father and daughter would not have been content with just having another book assigned. They would have burned down the school or entered into a lawsuit, or murdered someone, but they did not. It appears that they simply went about their business, as good Americans should.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

If the story contained the kinds of elements that those here contend, the father and daughter would not have been content with just having another book assigned. They would have burned down the school or entered into a lawsuit, or murdered someone, but they did not. It appears that they simply went about their business, as good Americans should.

And try and get the book banned so no one else can read it either. Yep thats the good old American way all right.

I think I did read the book many years ago. In fact, now that I think about it, I'm certain that I did. I read it so that I could understand the movie, which lost me very early on.

Yaknow, I didn't even know they made a movie. The way it sounds, it probably wasn't very good anyway, so maybe I'm not missing much. I really enjoy the book though, it's got a lot going for it.

I mean, the main character is a bibliophile who burns books for a living - beautiful, no?

However, my comments were not meant to be a critique of the book, but of the right of people to have some control over what their children are exposed to.

I know, and I agree 100% with the position that parents should be able to restrict their childrens' access to material deemed objectionable.

I just don't think one parent, or ten parents, or even a million parents, should have the right to restrict OUR childrens' access to things on the basis of religious belief.

I don't think we ought to give in to the demands of extremists, no matter their color or language or geographical location, because it just encourages them. I believe our children have the right to see the world for what it is, without arbitrary filters put in place by a minority of citizens to empower their illogical and irrelevant worldview.

It's sort of a moot point though, as far as I'm concerned, because I think no self-respecting parent would rely on the public schools to educate their child. You can send your kid to the kid-prison, as mandated by state and federal laws, but there's nothing stopping you from imparting a real education when the kid gets home.

That's the way I was educated, and that's the way I plan on educating my kids. If I can stay out of prison, and keep my kid, by sending them to school as mandated, I'll do so. But not for one minute would I consider delegating the task of educating my offspring. It's too important to trust to the same people who can't even keep potholes filled.

Maybe the man and his daughter are wrong. I don't remember enough about the book to say, but calling them less than human for exercising their rights of dissent is very un-ATS, in my opinion.

You may be right.

I happen to think that this man and his daughter are content to have their opinions manufactured for them by a group of power-mongers who have survived through the centuries by controlling citizens' access to educational materials.

I also think this man and his daughter, if they had their way, would turn back the clock 400 years or more, and we'd all be eating watery soup out of wooden bowls, listening intently to the scraps of wisdom tossed to us by rich, fat men in gilded robes, who walk across the piazza atop our backs to avoid dirtying their vestments.



Point being, I don't see how they can peacefully co-exist with me in society. I'm a writer of objectionable material, and they're psychophants intent on purging unseemly thoughts and words from the public sphere.

They are my antithesis, yaknow? Everything I want to take out of the box to show people, they want to put back in. I don't think there's even such a thing as a dirty word, only plenty of dirty minds to go around. I don't think there's such a thing as an evil thought, only various shades of selfish, sick, and impractical.

I don't expect them to like me, and I think it's unreasonable for anyone to expect me to like them.

Oil and water, yaknow?

'Un-ATS' as you put it, to me, means embracing ignorance. Banning books is tantamount to that, don't you think? Restricting the access of young minds to important thoughts is like wrapping a sponge in plastic to keep it from getting wet. It's a form of child abuse.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

I also think this man and his daughter, if they had their way, would turn back the clock 400 years or more, and we'd all be eating watery soup out of wooden bowls, listening intently to the scraps of wisdom tossed to us by rich, fat men in gilded robes, who walk across the piazza atop our backs to avoid dirtying their vestments.

Oh My!!!

The vast majority of Christians are fine, upstanding, sensible citizens.

It's the extremists we have to guard against.

Extremists of any stripe are to be feared and loathed, IMO. They are incompatible with our mode of governance, because they have no patience for consensus and debate. They want to dictate the shape that the public sphere takes, because they have it in their head that their personal whims carry the weight of divine mandate.

That's neither safe, nor sane.

Pointing out that fact doesn't make me anti-Christian any more than pointing out the senselessness of suicide bombings makes you anti-Muslim.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
However, my comments were not meant to be a critique of the book, but of the right of people to have some control over what their children are exposed to.

In this, you are correct. However, while I do not question their individual right to pick and choose literature, I do question what right these individuals have to decide what everyone else in the classroom and/or school gets to read...
Because one individual doesn't like the book, does not equal everyone else being deprived of it.

No, they are not less-than-human... not until they infringe upon other people's rights. *That* move is in-human, not to mention ever-so-slightly immoral...

The fact is that the book will not be banned, regardless of the outcome of this case. It might be taken off a reading list or it might be removed from a school library, but anyone who wants to read it will still be able to find it and do so.

See, when I was in high school (a public high school), if you and your parents decided that you were not allowed to read whatever novel was chosen at the time, then you were sent to the library with another book to read, similar assignments, and the class went on without you. End of story.. (pun intended).

The point is -- the book should not be pulled from the shelves of the library or a reading list simply because one person finds it offensive.

Personally, I despise Faulkner. Does that mean that I should lobby to have it pulled from the shelves/lists because of my personal distaste?
No. That simply means that I pull it from *my* shelves, from *my* reading list... and above all, *I* don't read it.
That's it. That's the extent that I may take my personal dissent.
And whenever I have kids.. it'll be back on my shelves for them to make their own opinion.

(And for the record (and slightly off-topic), I am insulted that we are not allowed to read 'Mein Kampf' -- it's a quasi-autobiography, it's psychology, and above all else it's an integral part of history. It might very well offend me -- so what. At least I may have the right to form my own opinion!!)

As I'm sure most people know, not everyone is supposed to like every single novel. However, that does not mean that a) they shouldn't read it anyhow, if not for the experience, then to be able to make valid arguments as to why they do not like the book... b) they should infringe upon the rights of every other student who, apparently, has no issue at all with reading it.

But, then again.. as I'm discovering more and more... Common sense isn't so common anymore.


[edit on 9-10-2006 by Diseria]

hey what about those medical books that show how a pe... is inserted into a va.... and what happens afterwards....that was our favourite library passtime when we were 10...burn them?


oh just pass her Miller and Bukowski and get on with it

Ok , we have a family that is trying to have a moral upbringing. We have a book that is read by schools in the USA. Now what and who told the teachers to read this book. I can see why we have a mral decay. As far as christians feel about this they know if they have read there good book that you should try to reason with love not hatefull feelings but have a clear head. What I do not understand is that all these so called christians do not even follow there good book , and if they did they would be much better off. I beleive in the quote from that book , look at ones own eye before you look into others. Other wise look into ones own sole before casting judgement on others and also do not judge for it is me to do so. But fight with love my Christians. Many Blessings.

Trying to have a moral upbringing is a wonderful thing. Trying to foist one's morality off onto others is not so wonderful. There are certain issues of morality that we all agree on, choosing what to, and what not to, read isn't one of them...

Most of us have no issue with someone not wanting to read Farenheit 451, I personally didn't much care for it. Don't much care for any of the authors work. That's just me. Someone earlier said they don't like Faulkner, I agree...overrated is an understatement. Others think they are the Bee's Knee's.

Morality, or lack thereof...in a work of literature, has very little to do with my personal distaste for removing books from libraries or school corriculum's. It's the loss of choice that bothers me...nothing more or less. My morals are my own.

Reminds me of the teacher in Donnie Darko...

except this is real...

cellar door

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I don't see a word about banning the book, only removing it from the curriculum. No one would be prohibited from reading the book.

Same thing. The book provides an important lesson, form an important author, at an important time for such lessons.

Which is why I think this is a stunt.

Isn't this "banned books week?" First week of October or last week of September comes to mind. What a great publicity stunt to have someone with a dullard-sounding name, make a stink about banning the book that is about banning books.

The timing seems to fit nicely.


Keep religion out of cirriculum decisions and leave it up to the parents and religious teachers to discuss important questions that might come up because of topics covered in school. Schools should be responsible for the mind, not the soul.

Originally posted by GradyPhilPott
However, my comments were not meant to be a critique of the book, but of the right of people to have some control over what their children are exposed to.

Why? To protect them, perhaps? From what?

It occurs to me that there are two ways to deny ignorance....

...one is acknowledge that ignorance is a lack of perspective...a lack of knowledge, so to deny it would be to inform oneself as broad as possible, to familiarize oneself with all types of info. Regardless of how it makes you feel.......

...two is to simply deny it. " I am not ignorant, "...... because I am at least versed enough to recognize the negative connotation of the label and do not wish myself to be percieved in a negative fashion.

Banning a book with the credibility of Farenheit is akin to communicating with your infant/child with the words, "Goo Goo Gah Gah." In the same way that Goo goo gah gah are never utilized by mature adults, the blatant suppression of a book/idea/concept won't fly in an ATS thread, much less a logical conversation....

If in an arguement you proposed a proof that was indeed a proof, however crassly expressed and I focused on the crass nature of the expression rather than the proof, as it were, how far would we get? Probably end up citing ambiguous catch phrases as if they really applied, such as Lefty, Righty, Liberal, Conservative, etc.........

In this vein, I feel somewhat justified in regarding the Father/Daughter duo with a bit of disdain and more than a question upon their intelligence......

Regardless of the Book of the month Club...or Anti-Book of the month club