More "Christian" Idiocy

OK, now that was funny.

 

And, I think anyone who would eliminate a book from a town because he believes it to be blasphemous would do any of the above, if he had the power to do it. You can't tell me someone isn't a Reconstructionist just because Reconstructionism hasn't suceeded yet.

 

Like someone said, earlier, if this guy was so offended by what he perceived as blasphemous passages, take his child out and stick her in a "Christian" school.

And underlining passages page by page that he feels is objectionable is hardly addressing the issue: what is the book about and what does it say about the way we live now?

And contrary to what yous said earlier, the parallels between this and say, the nutbars in Kansas who wanted to have "intelligent design" on the curricuum are pretty clear. Any differences are one of degree.

 

He's not eliminating it from the town, if the story you linked is right, and I don't even think he's trying to eliminate it from the school library (he might be, but the story doesn't say). He doesn't want it in the school curriculum. It's not the same thing as a town-wide ban.

Not every conservative expression of Christian faith is a call for Christian domination.

 

This is the same stupid argument that's been going on since they were trying to ban "Catcher in the Rye" in the 50's.

Wanting it banned from the curriculum is a ban. The fact that he might deign to allow it in the library is irrelevant.

As I said, ninety-nine times out of a hundred, these people haven't read a book since grade 8. They have as much expertise in commenting on the school literature curriculum as they have in commenting on what's taught in science.

 

Meat, the guy's daughter was given the option of reading another book. So, instead of taking that option, he wants to REMOVE the option of reading this book from EVERY OTHER student.

This isn't just a case of "I don't want my kid exposed." He isn't satisfied with that. He wants his views pushed upon every other student, even the ones that don't agree with him.

And, like Fenian said, just because he doesn't have the power to make all the changes doesn't mean he doesn't have the want to.

 

But the point I'm making is this guy in Texas isn't necessarily related to anything in Kansas or Washington or anywhere else. He COULD be, but right now it's one man making what he thinks is a moral stand.

And how do we know he didn't read it for context? The story doesn't say one way or another. Oh, right, I forgot.

Viva tolerance and non-prejudice.

 

1. The story doesn't say that she never did the alternate assignment.

2. I don't agree with what he did, as I've pointed out repeatedly (though whether anyone's listening at this point is in question). What I'm objecting to are the highly exaggerated responses to what this means. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

 

It doesn't mention that she did. It only states that her father was unhappy with this resolution. He didn't like that other students had the option to read Fahrenheit 451.

To him, the mere fact that other students would read this book infuriates him to the point that he NEEDS to act.

Nobody is saying that you agree with him. But, to say that this isn't symptomatic of what appears to be a larger scale problem is rather narrow.

Why is this man so bent on removing the book from the viewing eyes of other students?

It certainly has some similarities to the Muslim overreaction to the Muhammed cartoon.
"We don't place Muhammed in pictures, so you can't either."
"We don't like reading about the Bible getting burned, so you can't either."

 

Mystery,
I've run into the book banners a lot over the past few decades. It is not a generalization when I say that 1) the majority don't read nor do they encourage their children to 2) they have no clue about literature or the role it plays in our educational system 3) they take selected passages completely out of context and then hit us over the head with them, ignoring the text of the book in question.

And they are a heartbeat away from the other fundamentalist loonies such as the ID people.

And what this guy is doing is entirely related to what the big brains in Kansas were trying to do: force their narrow view of Christianity down the community's throat, science be damned.

 

This threatens to completely derail this into a theology thread, but what the hell, y'know?

Okay, imagine that you have someone you really love (warning: this is going to be a convoluted analogy, so bear with me). Let's say, for whatever reason, she writes a bunch of love letters to you, and they get out to the public. Then let's say that someone further down the line writes a book that talks about burning a book that contains those letters. Would you be offended?

Here's my point: For Christians, God is the most important being in our lives. It's not just some theoretical or intellectual nod of the head to the idea of a sentient overseeing being. It's a love of a God who made manifest His love for us through the sacrifice of His son, a man we believe to be sinless and perfect but who gave His life on the cross so that we might be forgiven our trespasses. We also believe (well, most of us) that the Bible is more than a book but the very words of God himself. Most of us don't treasure them so we can smack unsaved heathen in the ass with it, but because He gives us a glimpse of who He is and what He wants from us.

Now you can vehemently disagree with that. That's fine, it's well within your rights in America and on this board to do so, and I'll never tell someone that they're not allowed to believe the way they want to believe, even if I wholeheartedly disagree. But don't be surprised if people who believe all that are also hurt at some level when someone makes an attack on someone they love very much -- even if you don't believe they're valid in the way they express it. I'm not trying to convert you or make you feel guilty for being whatever you are, but I'm trying to provide some insight into what people like them think, instead of leaving it at "hey typical right-wing fascist, trying to censor free thought, he's a Recontructionist and probably too damn stupid to read past the cover without following along with his finger"

You would agree, though, that there's also significant differences in the way those differences were manifest (people died in riots related to the Muhammed cartoons, while some guy in Texas is trying to ban a book from a school curriculum), right?

 

On book burners: is this a Christian-only phenomenon, or does this apply to non-Christian banners as well?

Where in the story is he trying to implement any form of Christianity at all? Even if you accept that he's trying to have the books banned and burned (and there's nothing in the story that suggest he's going that far), how does that make the schools more conservative Christian in their bearing? Obviously he's coming from a Christian background and theology, but right now he's complaining about a book based on what he feels are offensive references to God and the Bible and swear words (and firemen, apparently).

Again: is it impossible for any Christian to make a statement or a motion in favor of a conservative cause without being deemed a foot soldier or suicide bomber for hyperconservative interests? Are we so caught up in the idea of talking points that we find it impossible for people holding opinions with which we don't agree to be capable of independent thought? Or is the fact they don't agree with us the proof positive that they can't think on their own?