The whole thing
started because of the person complaining about the books being anti-Bible. Reading this thread, I thought the whole issue centered on that, and that was the beginning and end of the debate. However, that is not at all the reality of the situation.
I highly recommend a reading of the article. Specifically the statements
about the procedure and decision on removing the books. It had just about nothing to do with religion (contrary to the suggestion of most of this thread).
Quote:
In making a recommendation to remove the two, Minor explained that "numerous individuals have read the three novels and provided their feedback." He conceded there wasn't always consensus about what step to take.
"We had some differences of opinion, I'll be honest with you," he said.
Minor said the process took a while because the 4,500-student district didn't want to look at the three books "in isolation." Instead, a task force was convened to develop book standards for elementary, middle and high schools.
The panel reviewed existing board policy and the public rating systems that already exist for music, TV and video games.
"We very clearly stayed out of discussion about moral issues. Our discussions from the get-go were age-appropriateness," he said.
"The discussion we've been having was not are these good books or bad books ... It is is this consistent with what we've said is appropriate for kids."
The board adopted the standards -- which cover language, violence, sexuality and illegal substances -- in April and those standards have since been applied to the three books.
|
With the thread talking so much about fundamentalist religious beliefs, I was surprised to see how that played
no role in the ultimate decision! The crux of the matter was "age-appropriateness."
Every society has morals. It looks like there were specific morals applied to these books, and they were removed. Certainly in that regard,
morals can either be a catalyst from, or overlap with, religious beliefs. But the fact of the matter is morals exist, and they made a decision based on said morals, not the religious source of those morals.
I oppose banning books. But I do not personally see this as book banning. It is either delaying children from reading the books due to "age-appropriateness"; kids can read the books later when they are more mature. Or, if parents individually decide a book is okay, they can allow their kids to read the book now. I find this a perfectly fair solution. And I do not see how this comes anywhere near to "book burning" in any form.
-Pie