Don’t you have an edit comment plug-in on this thing?

But that’s not what I’m trying to do. Rather, as cliche as it sounds, my intent was to suggest that avoiding name-calling encourages open-minded, and, yes, civil dialogue on a position that I think is more reasonable than you’re giving it credit for.

If you’re not interested in that on this blog, I will not expect (or dare to ask for) it.

“First: this is a secular setting…”

Which is why I said I disagree with his rationale. But not necessarily his argument.

“Second: I don’t support banning of books that teachers want to use in their curriculum in any case.”

Really? No matter what the title? You say that it’s self-evident, but it’s not to me. I can think of numerous books I may recommend to adults that I wouldn’t let a teacher require my kids to read–emphasis on “require”. This is different from parental restrictions, which I think you get, and I’ll touch on below.

“Third: I don’t support banning of books in libraries”

Nor do I. I don’t think I even approached this, nor did I see evidence that access to these books would be removed from local public libraries, did you?

“Fourth: of course I have read the books.”

I didn’t say you didn’t; I suggested that, if you had, your arguments for their inclusion would be more interesting. And knowing that you have does make this a potentially more interesting discussion. (I’ve only read “Slaughterhouse”, as you suspected. The others are entirely unknown to me.)

At any rate, the role of the books in question in your reaction wasn’t clear. But from your other statements, maybe the books themselves don’t matter…

“Fifth…”

I think what this really comes down to is disagreement on two points, not five.

First, your point #2. Apparently you don’t see a difference between restricting what public school teachers can teach minor children and book banning. I see them as two separate issues; the former is understandable, even necessary; the latter is rarely, if ever, tolerable. And while there is some overlap in the two in this particular case, I can’t conflate them as you continue to do.

I suspect your willingness to do so stems in part from your objection to the guy’s religious point-of-view, implied by his stated rationale. As I said, I do reject his rationale, however, this really doesn’t matter to me in terms of the argument, which I see as this: a community should be able to determine what minor children are /required/ to read in public schools.

A secondary argument is certainly “…what minor children should have access to in public schools”, but, again, these don’t have to be conflated, and are not in Scroggins’s quote.

The second disagreement actually surprises me. It’s a point suggested in your follow-up comment: you object to a parent restricting their children’s access to media. I can only infer, therefore, that you’d place absolutely no restrictions on the media that your children have access to? Or is it only (presumed) Bible-thumpers who shouldn’t restrict their kids’ access to media?

P.S. I sense you think I was trying to belittle you. I was not. As you know I typically let political dogs sleep, even howl, if they need to. But this time I was simply confused, and, yes, disappointed.

Second: I don’t support banning of books that teachers want to use in their curriculum in any case. I’m not going to make an extended argument as to why since it is as self-evident to me as your request makes clear you implicitly believe such an action is reasonable.

Third: I don’t support banning of books in libraries… access should be a matter of parent and child.

Fourth: of course I have read the books. I’m sure you’ve read at least one of them. Slaughterhouse Five is the constant target of dimwits like Scroggins. I could make an impassioned defense of the book– since it is the one I care most about– but it’s been made literally scores of times before.

Fifth: censorship actions like this do stink. Did you read his reasons? Because the books “teach actions contrary to the Bible?” Tell me again how that has any place in the decisions made by a public school?

Those who choose to censor these books ARE blind, and they are clearly leading another group who is blind in the same way. It stinks. People who lobby to have books removed on the basis of (their necessarily hand-selected to avoid contradiction) principles of the bible in a public institution are trogolodytes, in general people who attempt this kind of intellectual extortion are dimwits, and based on the reasoning Scroggins expresses he is very much one.

I don’t apologize for, or retract, anything I said in my post. In fact, responding here reminds me that I actually believe them in more forceful terms than I used here.

I could use a bunch of fancy terms to describe the stupidity Scroggins is demonstrating, but in the end I’m simply calling it as a I see it, no different than standing in front of a pile of garbage and “name-calling” by saying that it stinks.

Do you not see a difference between simple “book banning” and restricting schools from actively teaching certain books as part of the curriculum? It appears that this fellow aimed to do the latter:

“Wesley Scroggins, a Republic resident, challenged the use of the books and lesson plans in Republic schools, arguing they teach principles contrary to the Bible.”

I reject his rationale in a secular setting, but I could support an argument that there are certain books public schools should not teach because of age-appropriateness. (I’m not going to weigh in on any of these three particular books, as I’ve only read one.)

There’s a significant difference between a public school requiring students to read a certain book by teaching it, and allowing students to access a book to read it of their own volition. I wouldn’t always support the former, but would generally support the latter (though there certainly are books I, as a parent, would keep out of my young kids’ hands, the same way there are movies, video games, etc I would not let engage with).

Now, it does appear from the original report that the school library was forced to remove these titles from their shelves, which I have mixed feelings about.

I need to also say that the name-calling of this guy–”dimwit”, “stench”, “troglodyte”, “blind”–really provoked me into this response. I would much rather read your arguments for the books themselves–presuming you’ve read them, or even an argument against restricting teachers/schools selection of texts.