Quote:
Originally Posted by EatingPie
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).
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
|
TL;DR: This point has already been addressed.
Because, you know, government officials are always utterly honest and pure of intention. They would NEVER lie to cover up obviously unconstitutional behavior. Right?