Florida man asks schools to ban Bible following the state's efforts to remove books

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

All religious books. If I'd been the guy I'd have wanted to know why the Koran wasn't available in the library (assuming it wasn't). Don't they have Muslims in the school?

All religious books without exception?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Yes. Last time someone said there were no Bibles in their kid's school, I used the library online search to prove them wrong. By the same token, and the same search engine.

• Title
  The everything guide to Catholicism : a complete introduction to the beliefs, traditions, and tenets of the Catholic Church from past to present
  Author
  Gribble, Richard.
  Call number
  230 GRI
  Publisher
  Edition
  Pub date
  2011
  Holdings
  1 copy available at Pasco High School in On-Shelf

• • 3.

• • Keep
  • 
• Title
  The truth of Catholicism : ten controversies explored 1st ed.
  Author
  Weigel, George.
  Call number
  282 WEI
  Publisher
  Edition
  Pub date
  2001
  Holdings
  1 copy available at JWMitchell High School in On-Shelf

• • 4.
  • Keep
  • 
• Title
  St. Augustine in 90 minutes
  Author
  Strathern, Paul, 1940-
  Call number
  189 STR
  Publisher
  Edition
  Pub date
  1997
  Holdings
  1 copy available at Dr. John Long Middle School in On-Shelf

Good to know there are some decent books in libraries then.

 

[essentialsaltes]

He's the elected governor of the state with the authority to do what he's doing and he represents Florida. Do you concede that much?

No, the government is forbidden from viewpoint discrimination. It has been roundly rejected by the courts as unconstitutional. He does not have the authority to do that.

Viewpoint discrimination is a form of content discrimination particularly disfavored by the courts. When the government engages in content discrimination, it is restricting speech on a given subject matter. When it engages in viewpoint discrimination, it is singling out a particular opinion or perspective on that subject matter for treatment unlike that given to other viewpoints.

Because the government is essentially taking sides in a debate when it engages in viewpoint discrimination, the Supreme Court has held viewpoint-based restrictions to be especially offensive to the First Amendment. Such restrictions are treated as presumptively unconstitutional.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It's the 'some degree or other' that has me concerned.

It makes everyone concerned. When someone you don't like has power or resists rule it can get messy.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

No, the government is forbidden from viewpoint discrimination. It has been roundly rejected by the courts as unconstitutional. He does not have the authority to do that.

Viewpoint discrimination is a form of content discrimination particularly disfavored by the courts. When the government engages in content discrimination, it is restricting speech on a given subject matter. When it engages in viewpoint discrimination, it is singling out a particular opinion or perspective on that subject matter for treatment unlike that given to other viewpoints.

Because the government is essentially taking sides in a debate when it engages in viewpoint discrimination, the Supreme Court has held viewpoint-based restrictions to be especially offensive to the First Amendment. Such restrictions are treated as presumptively unconstitutional.

Evidently he does have the authority to do this. Insofar as he is acting now. Perhaps you will be proven right by the supreme court eventually but that just goes to show the flaws of the American system as it stands and the universalizing tendency to erode control over localities by handing it to the federal level.

 

[Bradskii]

All religious books without exception?

All mainstream religions? Yes. I think it's part of the education process to learn about each of them. My son went to a Catholic school and one of his subjects was Comparative Religion.

 

[KCfromNC]

I could imagine there are some on the left that wouldn't mind Banning the Bible from public schools.

A very quick retreat from confidently asserting the left as a whole wanted this to a post pretending that maybe someone might possibly maybe want to.

 

[ottawak]

What is the common decency idea of the conservative? Is it opposed to these themes intrinsically?

Conservative standards reject the depiction of abberant sexual activity (adultery, incest, rape) and want all books with such depictions removed, whether the abberant behavior is shown in a favorable light or not.

As in you are not allowed to present them? Why do conservatives more than liberals advocate for the reading of the classics both Christian and Pagan?

That may be true in New Zealand (I hope it is, anyway) but it is certainly not true in this country. The dominant form of Christianity here rejects even the Fathers, much less pagan writings.

It's only a particular type of person that criticism responds in order to knock down a strawman. All this demonstrates is that why the Conservative objects to is the content of certain books which they don't approve of. In as much as you might not approve of the content of right leaning works that explain the world differently.

Disapproving and banniing are two different things.

 

[Tom 1]

When a parent didn't want her child exposed to prayer in school ultimately she won out. So isn't it reasonable that parents should have some input on what is taught to their children?

Having some input on what is taught doesn’t equate to banning books from the school library.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I wish he wasn't such an obvious prankster (as useful as that can be). But as others have suggested: "Who should have final say over what materials their children are exposed to? Parents or the Government?"

If the government is not allowed to make determinations of what is and what isn't age-appropriate and should be on school library shelves, then our only recourse is to allow all squeaky wheels to get their grease -- institute statewide bans on anything that any parent doesn't want their child exposed to.

Should employers have the final say on who they employ?

Do we have a government that works for the public? Or some authoritarian beauracracy that tells us what to do?

 

[IceJad]

Modern western activists are usually childish in behaviour. The problem is not the subjects of books but rather if the parents deem that subject shouldn't be made available to a certain age group of children. Like it or not they are not your children. Their parents are responsible for them not activists. If they don't want to teach their children a certain subject at that age then it is all within their rights.

If there are a majority of parents wanting to let their children learn a subject they will not object. Since there is a large push back then you know majority parents don't agree to the subject. It is that simple. The problem activists think this equate to some form of buzzword phobia.

Activists are just hurt because they can't control what other people's children learn. Hands off the children of other people. If you want your child to learn certain subject by all means do it. If you want to allow your minors to touch the genitals of some sexual group then you take responsible for it. Don't tell other parents to follow your examples. To each their own.

To the parents who object to their own children from being expose to unsavory subjects then by all means. If you want your children to follow your preferred religious tenets you take responsibility of the outcome. You however have to leave the parents who wanted to expose their children to unsavory subjects alone. Their children are not your concern either. To each their own.

Teachers should respect the needs of parents regardless of their own personal beliefs. Else resign for you're incapable of professionalism.

 

[FireDragon76]

While I disagree with banning the Bible from libraries, I understand the idea. Extreme actions seem to breed extreme reactions. America needs moderation, not increasing extremism. I'm not an advocate for teaching religion in public schools, but banning library choices for readers doesn't seem to perpetuate love for our neighbors. Nor does it perpetuate encouraging one's thirst for knowledge or education in general.

American Evangelicalism and conservativism has had an anti-intellectual streak a mile long, so no surprises there that they don't care about getting books out of libraries.

 

[keith99]

So books with stories involving incest, murder, animal sacrifice, torture, etc. are acceptable.

I remember Jephthah! Not just ANIMAL sacrifice, HUMAN sacrifice. And ritual cannibalism! Oh and rape!

 

[Ana the Ist]

American Evangelicalism and conservativism has had an anti-intellectual streak a mile long, so no surprises there that they don't care about getting books out of libraries.

There's nothing intellectual about what is being banned.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I remember Jephthah! Not just ANIMAL sacrifice, HUMAN sacrifice. And ritual cannibalism! Oh and rape!

Don't forget the slavery.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, the government is forbidden from viewpoint discrimination. It has been roundly rejected by the courts as unconstitutional. He does not have the authority to do that.

Viewpoint discrimination is a form of content discrimination particularly disfavored by the courts. When the government engages in content discrimination, it is restricting speech on a given subject matter. When it engages in viewpoint discrimination, it is singling out a particular opinion or perspective on that subject matter for treatment unlike that given to other viewpoints.

Because the government is essentially taking sides in a debate when it engages in viewpoint discrimination, the Supreme Court has held viewpoint-based restrictions to be especially offensive to the First Amendment. Such restrictions are treated as presumptively unconstitutional.

As with all human rights....there are exceptions. Viewpoint discrimination in schools for example, is allowed for a host of reasons....chiefly amongst them is viewpoint neutrality.

Also, the government isn't even allowed to engage in viewpoint discrimination on non-public forums....like Twitter. Let's hope we see these tyrants heading to jail soon.

 

[Pommer]

As with all human rights....there are exceptions. Viewpoint discrimination in schools for example, is allowed for a host of reasons....chiefly amongst them is viewpoint neutrality.

Also, the government isn't even allowed to engage in viewpoint discrimination on non-public forums....like Twitter. Let's hope we see these tyrants heading to jail soon.

I’m really getting weary of the “politician-foes-in-jail-meme”.
Let’s try to not fight so much over silly things?
Let’s try that!?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Modern western activists are usually childish in behaviour. The problem is not the subjects of books but rather if the parents deem that subject shouldn't be made available to a certain age group of children. Like it or not they are not your children. Their parents are responsible for them not activists. If they don't want to teach their children a certain subject at that age then it is all within their rights.

I have no idea what "western activists" are.

If there are a majority of parents wanting to let their children learn a subject they will not object. Since there is a large push back then you know majority parents don't agree to the subject. It is that simple. The problem activists think this equate to some form of buzzword phobia.

This is a thread about banning books, not curricula.

Activists are just hurt because they can't control what other people's children learn. Hands off the children of other people. If you want your child to learn certain subject by all means do it. If you want to allow your minors to touch the genitals of some sexual group then you take responsible for it. Don't tell other parents to follow your examples. To each their own.

This is a thread about banning books, not sexual molestation of children. (You seem to be saying it is up to parents to determine if that happens. Very disturbing.)

To the parents who object to their own children from being expose to unsavory subjects then by all means. If you want your children to follow your preferred religious tenets you take responsibility of the outcome. You however have to leave the parents who wanted to expose their children to unsavory subjects alone. Their children are not your concern either. To each their own.

This is a thread about banning books, not curricula.

Teachers should respect the needs of parents regardless of their own personal beliefs. Else resign for you're incapable of professionalism.

This is a thread about school libraries, not teachers or curricula.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I’m really getting weary of the “politician-foes-in-jail-meme”.
Let’s try to not fight so much over silly things?
Let’s try that!?

I don't think it's silly. Freedom of speech is important. Government interference through a private company is a clear 1st amendment right violation.

Those involved should at least resign. I mean, the federal government is trying to set up an entire agency dedicated to denying freedom of speech and the people voting for them are living in some fantasy world where they're fighting authoritarianism.