Book Banning is Alive and Well in Oklahoma - UPDATED!
A lot can be said of my new state. As a Texan, I grew up making fun of it. So much so that when we decided to buy here, I found a place as close to the Red River as I could. I still haven’t quite adjusted to life here. While Texas is big in the holy-roller department, I’m pretty sure Oklahoma has it beat. When we first moved here, the first question out of peoples’ mouths was, “What church do you got to?” At first, our response was, “We just moved here.” Then it became, “Oh, you know, everything breaks down or out on Sundays.” Now, I just say, “We don’t.” As you can imagine, this is met with surprise while I just try to keep the conversation moving in another direction. I can’t wait until they all find out I’m a liberal.
For those that believe in the separation of church and state, as our Founding Fathers did, there is an increasing push to seemingly test those limits here in Oklahoma. In Stigler a Ten Commandments monument is proudly displayed in front of the Haskell County Courthouse. This has, however, been challenged as an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and is awaiting a decision by the Supreme Court. You would think having the highest court in the land deciding the fate of a monument would be a deterrent, but not in Oklahoma. In the neighboring county of LeFlore, the town’s commissioners agreed to erect the very same thing on the courthouse lawn. But, in deciding to wait for the Supreme Court, they moved the monument to a neighboring bank in the interim with an unveiling just last week.
Haskell County Courthouse, Brandi Simons - AP
But, oh, there’s more. Just this past summer, there was a measure to place a privately funded Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the State Capitol. The state legislature passed it with flying colors and Governor Brad Henry signed it into law. In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that Ten Commandments monuments on government property must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. It seems as though Oklahoma is trying to flood them with those cases until one sticks - and the one for the State Capital monument may just be the one that does. They were a bit more careful in the language used in the bill, cautious to note it as “historical” as opposed to mentioning religion. State lawmakers are awaiting the outcome of the Haskell county verdict before proceeding as well, with the ACLU waiting in the wings to challenge the state if it moves forward.
So, this is the state I live in. A place with too many churches to count in the small community I live in. Within a 30-mile radius, there are hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands of churches. I know what rules the land here; I’m not naïve to it.
Surrounding churches (I'm at A) - Google maps
So, it should come as no surprise to me that there would be a blurb about a book banning from a Tulsa elementary school. Thomas Jefferson Elementary School to be exact. In 2010. A book banning. The book in question? Buster’s Sugartime by Marc Brown. Sounds awfully dangerous, doesn’t it? Buster must be a crazed murderer or have explicit sex. Nope. Buster visits Vermont and learns how to make maple syrup during “mud season”. Except, poor Buster ends up at the wrong place for one Oklahoma parent – that of a same-sex couple. The book must go on and on about gay sex or something, right? Nope. Two passages in the book’s entirety even remotely allude to the partnership: “Buster went to visit his mom’s friends Karen and Gillian. They have three children…” and “Lilly’s moms, Tracy and Gina, were very good cooks.” Oh, the horror! It’s like he’s trying to ram it down the kids’ throats!
Bad Buster!
One parent read the book and felt that it was inappropriate for the school. She believes it is Brown’s intent to expose children to same-sex marriage. How dastardly! She went on to further state that since Oklahoma law doesn’t recognize them; her children shouldn’t be exposed to it at school. I’m guessing she stopped short of calling the book illegal. She brought her “concerns” to the school board’s Materials Review Board last October, with them ruling the book should be allowed to stay in a vote of 6-1. However, she pressed the issue of pulling the book from the shelves at the school’s media center and the complaint is now in front of the Union school board with a decision being made tonight.
I’m fervently hoping that the school board will agree with the review board. When we start dictating what children should be exposed to on a religious basis – only if it sides with religion – we are letting them down. Maybe there’s a child at that school that has two moms or two dads and finding this book allows them to feel a little more adjusted. And yes, lady, there could be gay parents at your kid’s school. Even in Oklahoma.
The people that yell the loudest about our Founding Fathers – that we must get back to what they wanted – always seem to be the same folks who can’t seem to separate church from, well, anything. The irony that the school in question has the namesake of Thomas Jefferson is not lost on me. I do, however, imagine it is on this parent. That’s assuming, of course, she’d know what the word means, I don’t know how many references there are to it in the Bible.
I guess I should look on the bright side. This is still a state where some Constitutional Rights are protected with vigor. It’s nice to know that if I just have to have that pecan tree and am low on cash, I can just give them a gun in exchange. Yay landscaping!
Real ad from my electric co-op paper
UPDATE:
The Tulsa Union School Board voted to keep Brown's book on the shelves with a vote of 3-2. It's a small victory, but a victory for equality nonetheless. Another interesting note is that per board policy, once a book has been challenged, it cannot come up for review for at least one year.
I also wanted to make clear that this book is not about same-sex marriage in any way, shape or form. The book is 31 pages in all and the quotes above are the only mention - it basically boils down to women's names. Honestly, I don't even think a kid would be fazed by it. It is not assigned reading material. It is a book that any child can check out from the school's media center.
The way I see it, if a child reads the harmless book and has a question about it, it is up to the parents to explain whatever and however they want to. The ones who object can teach their children how wrong and awful it is for someone to have two loving parents that just happen to be of the same sex. The ones who understand that there is a big ol' world around them can certainly instill that in their children as well. But, for a child to pick up on the same-sex issue and only the same-sex issue doesn't really fly with me. I mean, it's a bunny learning to make maple syrup. Shouldn't they start with a talking bunny?
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
MrCoffee
Ryan Ashmore
MJwycha
Damion Chaplin
Bill S.
Leon Freilich
Salon.com
Comments
But yes I always do wonder how they reconcile not wanting government intervention on one hand (e.g. pollution standards) while using governmental powers on the other to inflict their beliefs onto everyone else. Just goes to show what an entire charade the whole conservative ideology is as it's nothing but self-serving and corrupt.
"The people that yell the loudest about our Founding Fathers – that we must get back to what they wanted – always seem to be the same folks who can’t seem to separate church from, well, anything."
Yep. Most of those folks have a notion that freedom of religion means freedom of their religion and heavy restrictions on other religions and anything else which deviates even slightly from their narrow little dogma. We've got no shortage of them here in Kansas, and they make my head hurt.
Harry - Shhh - don't tell. You're exactly right though - let's pick and choose which rights suit us best.
http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A27342
"Ritze has promised to pay for construction of the monument itself, but he said last month he was pursuing an older, existing monument that is a replica of the monument at the Texas Capitol. That 6-foot monument was a gift to Texas from the Fraternal Order of Eagles, which reportedly donated thousands of the monuments to entities around the nation during that era with the support of Hollywood filmmaker Cecil B. DeMille, who directed the 1956 Charlton Heston film "The Ten Commandments.""
Good luck, Julie. May the 4th be with you and all that jazz.
It's the absolute hypocrisy that gets me. Although, I guess it really shouldn't anymore. But, man, some of them have some big ol' balls.
Thank you so much for this post. Articles like this must keep being written, because as you said, the censorship gang intends to flood the system until they can make a case stick.
Folks don't take the time to consider what the true price of freedom is. Unless it is applied equally, the censors of today may well become the censored of tomorrow.
Religious people in particular should remember they have been on both sides of persecution. Censorship in the hands of crusaders never turns out good.
Rated and appreciated.
Cocoa - That's interesting about the movie connection. I did read that the state already has their defense lined up with the Texas monument as an example. However, as you noted, that monument has been there a long time - 40 years or something. I imagine if this was being tried at the Texas capital today, they would find the same resistance. At least, I hope they would.
That's the thing they don't realize, I guess. Exactly as you said - the ones doing the censoring will become the censored of the future. And I hold a grudge.
Good lord - I'd say you could come here, but it's just as bad!
Great post, Julie!
Mom - The way you've captured Buster...it's...it's almost as if you know him. He must be stopped! Like puppies need finding. Pfft.
I think we're heading into a bad time. I spoke last week with a friend who's high up in the gay rights movement in Indiana. He's afraid that we're gonna swing to the right, and he's going to have to gear up for a fight--a fight we all thought we'd avoided a couple of years ago.
Great post, Julie. Ban book banners, I say.
And regarding the book - my opinion is, it is a parent's responsibility to know what their children are reading and if you have a concern, by all means, don't have your child read the book. But don't tell me what I should or should not have my child read. That's my decision. Period.
Jodi - I hear ya.
Frank - It seems that as soon as we start to make some progress, they just push us down further. It's becoming increasingly alarming at the direction we're going. I'm afraid to say that I think your friend is right.
all this is scary stuff. little pieces -- the monuments, that book, then another book, then another -- next thing you know they'll be banning gays from being in OK. which makes it hard to drive from austin TX to larned KS.
When people want to shield their children from other lifestyles/religions/opinions, it always makes me think that they are worried that they've done such a crappy job raising the kids, or that their beliefs are so weak, that they won't stand up to any outside influence.
OM - ::sigh:: Malls. Tell me what those look like again! And yes on all accounts!
...is that the major reason for those monuments has nothing to do with morals...
...but with and attitude of "this is in your face!"
It is a majority laughing at a minority...and saying, "It doesn't matter that the reason we are doing this is just to show you that we can...we ARE doing it just to show you that we can."
The way things are going with this court: This kind of thing may get its blessings! (irony intended)
blue - I definitely think that they are afraid of that. The child might grow to have a different view of the world than them and that just isn't right apparently. That's what is so concerning about all this - I know it's not relegated to Oklahoma or small towns. Add 'em all up and it's a scary robot place to be.
Good for you for saying what you believed. Even if it's in a small way, I try to do the same. I just have to know my audience. One of our neighbors looooves Glenn Beck and likes to remind me of that every time I see him. I now have MSNBC blaring as soon as he walks in the door. Little tit for tat.
Thanks guys! (or gal, J.A.K.)
"The people that yell the loudest about our Founding Fathers – that we must get back to what they wanted – always seem to be the same folks who can’t seem to separate church from, well, anything."
This is always my complaint. Pols and regular folks who sing America's praises generally do so while simultaneously trying to tear down what America stands for. In the case of pols, it's probably often cynicism, but I'm guessing ignorance is more likely among ordinary citizens. And that makes me both sad and angry.
Because a parent had raised this objection, it was pulled from the school library. Enough sane people got together and got it back.
There are several copies, I am proud to say. Thanks for this and I hope they bring Baxter back. r
Arizona which has had a republican legislature for about sixty years can’t seem to balance this year’s budget, let alone next years. We’re about 3 billion short because, among other things, they decided it was more important to cut taxes that keep our “rainy day fund” for situations like the one we’re in.
Instead of worrying about the budget, today another of our wingnuts sponsored a bill to allow sparklers, which are now illegal since we have this huge problem with forest fires every year. I never knew we had a constitutional right to burn our communities down. A few years ago we burned over 500,000 acres in just one, well two fires that burned together making one great big one.
Mr. Pearse has been around for a long time, once he was term limited in the house, he moved to the senate. He is Mormon and has a big following because of his stance on illegal immigration. They run a charter school, which is publicly funded, called Heritage Academy which praises the founding fathers, or at least those that were religiously intolerant.
Have fun in Oklahoma, but I’m thinking we’re number one in legislative stupidity. Rated.
Literacy is wasted on some people.
Looking at all those churches south of the Red River depressed me so much I can't even pull out my favorite Oklahoma joke.
Cow balls.
(Heads up to your overflowing inbox, I'm sending a PM.)
Hang in there, my friend, rated.
Psyche - I think you get a second tree free for a rifle.
Akopsa - I absolutely does matter. Going to read your post now. Thanks!
Joan - Good for you for standing up. I wish Tulsa wasn't 3 hours away or I would be at that meeting tonight!
Gramps - Damn. Thanks for shining a little light on what Arizona's doing. I wouldn't mind reading a little more about it - maybe a post from you? I'd say you most definitely have us beat - I'm sure Oklahoma isn't far behind. Wackos.
Cow ball indeed.
Thoth - No cows in San Fran. We'd probably be in Carmel Valley if land wasn't so ridiculously - I mean, ridiculously expensive.
Gwen - Lucky girl. ;)
Donna - Can you believe those? I'm in the Twilight Zone. I hope it does come back and that it is especially painful.
Don't make me call your neighbours rednecks again.
;)
You say not to make this about guns, but I'm afraid there is a connection between people who ban books and love guns, just as there is a connection between people who don't read and love violence. In the words of John Lennon, happiness is a warm gun, and the connection between guns, sex and power is all too obvious in the hinterlands -- whether they be in Oklahoma or Tennessee.
On the other hand, call me old school, but I see no reason for the thinly-veiled allusions to homosexuality in the book other than to promote homosexuality in an elementary school. And yes, it is like the auther is trying to ram it down the kids’ throats -- or stick it in the craw of their parents! It is an inappropriate as those metaphors are in this context.
Yes, thankfully that heinous book, designed to churn out little lesbians, was banned:)
Great post!
Rated
We celebrate Christmas because every culture known to humankind has always celebrated the (re)birth of the Sun following the three days of its "death" after the Winter Solstice. Why we call that holiday Christmas, when the purported birth of Jesus was at another time of year, is the question that ought to be asked -- but won't be.
I not only think gays should have the right to marry, I say they already have that right. The state actions have been to rescind that right, not prevent it from being.
I'm against the Ten Commandments movement, one reason being it has become a movement - a protest, not a legitimate exception to the Establishment Clause separation. The other reason is it is a violation of the 1st.
However...
I'm landing on Cordle's side here, for perhaps different reasons.
While gays have or should have that right, there is no right to have an elementary school system take up their cause to "normalize" gay marriage to children if most parents within that system object.
Schools operate under in loco parentis -- as an extension of the parents. The valid objection would involve a question of age-appropriate. Religion is a far less valid claim, as gay marriage is secular, not religious, as law is concerned. But parents do have a solid right to not have government representatives - teachers, in this case, disparage any religion or religious belief.
In this case that disparagement is more tangential that direct, so as a matter of Establishment Clause restrictions...a weaker case to make. I wouldn't make it. If a majority of parents decide they don't want the book, I'll defend that right. Let those who want teach their children their version of the issue at home as they please.
High school social studies would be the legitimate time to address the issue, as it is a valid example of an element of society.
At that age, the questions of disparagement and age appropriate are far less open to questions of indoctrination, or a misinterpretation of the student's "reasonable observer" status, which is the legal standard for government religious disparagement.
I'm betting I dislike the religious right's attempt to intrude on government as much as anyone, but that objection shouldn't take the same, but mirror image form of pushing beliefs outside of their rights. One group has to stay with legal and Constitutional traditions. I want to be in that group.
I could drive to Tulsa's Union School District meeting in 20 minutes. Behind enemy lines, some might say....
I think all religious zealots are like this -- they're all vying for the most perfect christian award.
And you know what keeps Texas from slipping into the Gulf of Mexico, don't you?
Nonsense. Most Libertarians are atheists or agnostics. The issue is what constitutes establishing religion. A cross on a town firehouse thats been there for 100 years, often funded by churches back then as firehouses were not public. The ACLU protects progressive speech and repress any other speech. Then once a year they support Nazi marches to pretend they are nonpartisan. As an agnostic, I can't say I care where the ten commandments are. That is not the same as declaring America Judeo-Christian.
Rog - No, we moved from Oregon. I guess it's been two years now. We were in Dallas for a year before we bought this place.
Nick - I'll totally check that out! I absolutely love it when someone leg sweeps the crutch - especially if it's on TV!
Bonnie - Thanks, I'll check it out.
Ocular - TELL ME!! Where do they put the money???
Eva - I'm afraid I'll never have the answer to that one.
Owl - Please don't. Owls are weird enough as it is, I couldn't stand a featherless one. Great! Now I'm gonna have nightmares.
PJ - I guess that's where we differ. It isn't "most parents" by any stretch. It was one although I'm sure a few others hopped on board. As I posted in the update and in the piece - the book is 31 pages with those two sentences the only mention. I don't feel that constitutes a cause to "normalize" gay marriage. I just think it's the world we live in and don't authors tend to write about that?
It isn't a book that's being taught. it isn't a book that's required reading curriculum. It's simply a book that can be checked out or not from the school's library. In another bit of irony, I imagine they'll probably need to get a few more copies as parents will want to check it out.
You should have gone to the meeting!
Skel - I swear that's the first thing my sister said when we closed on the ranch! ...because Oklahoma sucks.
L&P - Will do - thanks for dropping by.
Sweetfeet - I believe that's the mantra around here.
Karin - Exactly!
Nelly - I grew up in a smaller town outside of Dallas, so I know the yin and yang. But, it's still surprising to me when someone goes this far. And, I think I'll try to barter for my electric bill and see where that gets me!
Sparky - Thanks!
Whore - I understand what you're saying and I'm speaking mostly about the ones shouting on Fox News. I also understand the crosses, monuments, etc. that are long standing. Whatever my beliefs are, I don't think that's an issue that really needs to be interfered with. History is history, ya know?
L&P - I know! Eep! But it's a victory all the same. Thanks for coming back!
Well, I think they are asking the WRONG question. There is some very very serious subtext that is going completely unquestioned with that stuff.
Namely, inter species relationships. Mostly, its just vanilla, I suppose. Aardvarks mate with each other, etc. But one of the pals is some sort of mixture of animals -- a violation of natural law in the literal sense.
But the notion that interspecies sex is EVER right.
How come they didn't get called out on that one? I'm pretty liberal about sex, but I wouldn't want to give kids any extra ideas about the desirability of messing around with other species. Especially in a state with a lot of farm animals.
Just saying.
Second, when I hear about protecting children from reality, I always think of Mark Twain’s “The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg.”:
“As soon as I found out that you carefully and vigilantly kept yourselves and your children OUT OF TEMPTATION, I knew how to proceed. Why, you simple creatures, the weakest of all weak things is a virtue which has not been tested in the fire.”
In the end the town changes its motto to “Lead us into temptation.”First, the school is named after Thomas Jefferson? Don’t the citizens know how Jefferson felt about miracles, or about how his version of the N.T. differs from the version being thumped every Sunday in their churches?
Second, when I hear about protecting children from reality, I always think of Mark Twain’s “The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg.”:
“As soon as I found out that you carefully and vigilantly kept yourselves and your children OUT OF TEMPTATION, I knew how to proceed. Why, you simple creatures, the weakest of all weak things is a virtue which has not been tested in the fire.”
In the end the town changes its motto to “Lead us into temptation.”
(And thanks for the update. I would think that Oklahomans should be more worried about the glorification of blatantly Yankee activities like syrup making.)
http://www.williamgbecker.com/littleaxeok.html
Scarabus - I know - it's almost laughable that the school's name is Thomas Jefferson. Excellent quote from Twain and perfectly fitting here!
kreadel - Thanks for dropping by!
Em - Why, whatever do you mean? ::bats eyes::
And you're right - I mean, Vermont!
Bill - I don't mind a little self-promotion at all. That's an excellent article and a really amazing story. I'm glad those gals stood up for their kids, but am devastated by what they had to go through. And this was in the 80s! Wow. Just wow.
Thanks for posting it here.
Akopsa - Thanks for coming back!
Ronnie - Next he'll be attacking virgins. I'm sure of it.
How will it ever be considered to be normal without it being presented as normal in books and other media. These 2 sentences are far from 'in your face'.
I didn't say "most parents" were against the book. I have no way of knowing. My position is if a majority of parents wanted their kids kept from it, that's within their rights - at that age, at least.
It's good to see the folks at Union were able to resist the effort. Based on the passages you showed, it seemed pretty subtle, and at the age of the readers, unlikely to prompt any questions that couldn't be handled properly. The parent who would intentionally point it out in order to enable passing on prejudices has problems bordering on abusive.
But still I say that in this case, and others like it, a majority of parents should be able to set limits. Social change moves at its own pace - legal change can happen overnight. If this example is discrimination, it is passive, not active.
Tulsa is Oklahoma's most progressive city. In Oklahoma City, they'd have first asked : What is a book?
Glad to hear the outcome was favorable to reason and free speech.
Pecan trees for guns. Outrageous. Wow. Must go look at ad again.
We live in a country that espouses "Freedom of Religion" but in most parts of the country if that religion is not Evangelical, you are up shit creek!
You're welcome.
Here in my blue liberal town (Oak Park, IL) we have a couple of parents and a religious hate group (officially were on a hate group list until recently) who are opposing some anti-bullying/diversity training at an elementary K-5 school here. The training was given to teachers, not to the kids, and this is a community where alternative families are not uncommon (we have lesbian moms/child right up the block.)
Anyway, here's an interesting thing. The religious people have made the argument that offering this sort of anti-bullying training is a violation of the separation of church and state. They believe that homosexuals are sinful, and that teaching teachers to recognize and stop bullying (for example, against kids who are being raised by gay parents) "normalizes" the behavior. In essence, they are arguing that to teach their children to NOT discriminate forces their kids to be immoral.
Seriously fucked up. I have a hard time getting my head around this argument, but based on some of the comments online to a local news story (from out of towners, probably from church groups) it is an argument that resonates with the haters. If you don't let my kid beat up on your gay-ass kid, you're infringing on my right to practice my religion.
And they keep repeating that argument. (My favorite quote from someone representing the school: "It's not a morality issue, it's a reality issue.")
If not then the state not the parent controls the public school and it cease to be a public school and becomes a government school. Granted the book in question is tame by most standards, but it does present a point of view that many find objectionable and even those who may be neutral about the issue still don't want it part of their child's education.
Parents have several options when it comes to objectionable books. One if a book is personally objectionable a parent has the right to have the school provide alternative reading. If there is a book the parents want their child to read, but the school does not consider it appropriate the parent can buy the book and read it to their child.
Personally does not matter to me, first off my children never attended public school and second I don't live in OK. But from a philosophical standpoint, public school should in part reflect the cultural and values of the community. The community not the school, special interest groups, or individuals should have the final say on what is taught their children.
Also, a lot has been placed under the banner of separation of church and state. This one line out of a personal letter from Jefferson to a group fearing the Anglican Church would be made the official church of the country is rarely taking in context. Actually many believe it is in the constitution. The context of the letter is primarily Jefferson expressing the state is to be kept out of the church not the church removed from public discourse. The wall is there to keep the state out of free expression of religion.
I am sure if you went down the list of all book banned by the Oklahoma school board you would find many you would not want your child being taught or being exposed to while other parents would. Maybe this book in question is not one of them, but it seems at least the majority of citizens do not object.
Artist - I agree. The only ones who would take anything negative (or probably anything at all) away from that are the parents who oppose gay rights.
Donna - Thanks for checking back!
Geezer - I never really thought of it like that, but you're right! Whew.
Ash - Sometimes it's like bizarro world.
Harry - That does seem like a more permanent way to go.
Joan - me too!
Jimmy - I'm thinking not. (Heard the new movie is terrible)
PJ - I might agree that if the majority of parents wanted the book pulled - or any action - that those in charge should listen. However, that just wasn't the case here. But, then I'd be very cautious to look at the mob mentality of what was taking place.
For sure social change moves at a snails pace around here, but it's got to move forward at some point. It seems to move the other way. I'm finding stories upon stories that are just unbelievable in this day and age, so perhaps that's in the back of my mind with this as well.
Sheepy - That's a really good point. I guess it probably had undertones of sex, sex, sex too. Thank goodness he didn't go to a cherry orchard.
Beth - Ready! Can you believe that? I've pinned it up so I can look at it all the time!
Kenny - Exactly. (I feel like I keep saying that to everyone, but it's true.) Bill put a good link in: http://www.williamgbecker.com/littleaxeok.html
It describes what you are saying to a T. If religions are going after religions, imagine what those without or who protest even slightly are up against. ::shakes head::
Norwonk - Thanks for that.
Wild - Wow. I really don't even know what to say to that. Wow.
M - Agreed. It's not new at all. It's just how low some folks are willing to stoop - in this case the elementary level.
The problem with allowing the "community" to dictate what is and isn't appropriate for schools is the community itself. Again, in this part of the country, religion rules - mob mentality rules. If you aren't with them, you're against them - even if you're not.
The weirdest thing happened last night. I couldn't sleep and was flipping around the channels and came upon a Lifetime movie (I know, I know). But, here's a short synopsis of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Like_Everyone_Else
It's a true story of a Native American girl who was bullied and harassed not only by her fellow students, community, but school itself - all because she was different. That school district? UNION. They seem to have a pattern with this kind of behavior and I was shocked and saddened to see what happened to this girl and her family in this day and age.
So, while community may need to be a part of it, they can't and shouldn't dictate anything if their minds are set in the age of the Salem witch trials.
Now that you mention it, the objections should be aimed directly at the author, who is clearly a peyote head. Rabbits making sugar...indeed!
And religious crap aside, it's something that is absolutely necessary to work in a global business world. My boss and the head of my department both happen to be gay (I work in the dryest-sounding department in one of the most conservative-sounding sectors you can imagine.) Several other people are as well - one of my colleagues is a parent raising a child with her lesbian partner.
We also have divorced people, single parents, hindus, muslims, vegetarians, atheists, people raised on other continents whose first language is not English. And this is just the local people - not the ones from around the world I interact with on the phone.
No one is doing their children, or their community, any favors by trying to keep their kids in a little bubble.
Of course banning books has been a favored pass-time of the religious zealots, but at some point there has to be enough people willing to go against them and let them now that we've moved beyond their bigotry. Thanks for dropping by.
Wild - There's a big ol' world out there and sheltering our kids from it or going with the "majority" view, especially when you don't hold it, is just as dangerous as all out teaching hate, in my opinion. Thanks for your comment.
On "government schools," the term M. Todd used. The word "government" has a negative meaning, often understandably. But the way I learned civics was that government is what "we the people" do collectively - those things we think are so important that they need to be in our hands, like our schools, our police and fire. I know at a national level - well, but anyway. It's something I keep in my mind. Getting out and voting is supposed to be an expression of us, the people. The community.
That we have universal public schooling was really a pretty amazing commitment for "we the people" to have taken on. But if we insist on everyone getting their own little version of public schooling to suit their special interests, we lose a couple of things. First, we undermine the whole concept of public schooling. And more importantly, we undermine the idea of a public space, a secular space, where we share common language and some common ideas as the base for any sort of civic discussion.
I agree that majority rules does have its problems. In the case of education their will always be areas that will cause a fire storm. Most the time a happy compromise can be found, but not always. The bottom line is parents should be involved in their child's education. Truth is to many have left it up to the schools and never question what is being taught. Like I stated earlier, my kids never attended public school, but if something was taught that went against my ethical or moral view this is how I would have handled it. I would have used it to teach why it was objectionable to me and the reasons. To often parents leave out the why they object to something is objectionable. Just saying that its is something we do not believe does little to helping a child develop their own ability to choose and weight how they feel about issues as independent beings.
Wild,
You are correct no one has total input into what is taught in the public school, but at the same time you do have input. Parents do have a vested interest as to what is taught their children, the schools are public and funded by the public. The school system is not the final authority the parents are the last word. Right now same sex marriage is a hot topic and is a moral issue with some and others not a big deal. Some want it taught some don't and in the end both sides cannot not win. While this book treats it as a "matter of fact" gay marriage is not widely accepted in this society.There is no such thing as censorless education. The only question I raised is who decides in these areas of moral debate the parents or the public school which by definition should represent the public.
Children are raised in a bubble it is called a family. Parents filter and decide what their children see and hear (or at least they should) all the time. Some things may be a matter of what is appropriate at what age, and other things may just be taught as right or wrong. You may disagree, but you have the same right to raise your children as you see fit.
But if it's in the school library then SOMEONE from the school had to approve of it and purchase it.
I have to agree with M Todd here. Parents have a right to have some control over the materials that are available to their children in public schools. After all, it is their money that funds the schools, and I don't think there's anything wrong with having materials in schools that are consistent with the values of the larger community, within limits, of course.
Julie: "When we start dictating what children should be exposed to on a religious basis – only if it sides with religion – we are letting them down."
The point that conservative Christian parents make is that liberal secularism functions as a kind of religion, complete with its own worldview and moral system. And I think there's something to that. I find it odd that supporting a book that presents a favorable view of same-sex relationships is perfectly acceptable, while opposing it is thought to constitute an unwarranted imposition of religious values. The bottom line is that there's nothing in the Constitution to indicate that religious viewpoints must be excluded from public life merely because they are religious. To do so would constitute not a separation of church and state, but state opposition to and exclusion of religion.
When our children were young we screened the books based on content. Most parents do, if there there was an objectionable book, my feeling was to not check it out instead of insisting it be removed because I respected each parents right to choose what they wanted to teach.
I remembered one book in particular which was a Newberry award winning book, titled Julia of the Wolves. It was a story of an teen Eskimo girl who was married off at the age of 14 to a retarded boy in the village. She ran away to find her father and lived with the wolves on the Alaskan tundra. There was one scene where her new husband tried to rape her because the men of the village teased him because he did not have sex with her yet. We skipped that part during the family reading because it was not age appropriate for a nine and seven year old. So in that case I censored the book not because of the subject of rape, but because of their age.
It is never easy to decide which moral issues should be taught to children. Each family is different and each parent is responsible for what their children read and see. I have a problem with parents who let their children watch slasher movies, or play hyper violent video games, and I am sure some would have issues with some of my choices.
As for the book in question, I would fight for the right to publish the book, to sell the book, and individuals to buy it. The issue gets a little sticky when public money is being used. Granted everyone will not be happy with all the choices school officials and librarians make, but there should be the forum of public discourse and some choice in what is allowed in their community. When all is said and done the final say comes down to the parent who is responsible to teach their children.
I see that I am late arriving at the party, but I do believe that you have missed the larger, dare I say eternal, issue here. This is about the final salvation or damnation of our children. You must always remember that the Bible is the perfect, unerring, literal word of God. If you would look at "Buster's Sugartime" in the light of scripture, you would quickly see how evil it is.
First, the book's main character is Buster. Buster is a friend of "Arthur", a character created by Satanist Marc Brown. The "Arthur" series airs on PBS TV. PBS of course was created by Godless liberals to brainwash the public into accepting a secular humanist liberal agenda. Even the demons who created PBS knew it was all a lie, that is why they called it PBS for Purely Blatant Sin.
Second, Buster is a rabbit and therefore unclean in the eyes of God. Leviticus 11:6 states: "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you." Nevermind that a rabbit does not chew his cud. The Bible is infallible.
Next this abomination about " Lilly’s moms, Tracy and Gina" is pure depravity. God clearly commands us in Ephesians 5:22-24 "The husband is head of his wife as Christ is head of the church .Neither his wife nor their parents are the authority in his family." This is God's plan from the beginning as I remind you from this scripture in which God bestows His mercy on Woman. Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."
But all of this is simply the outgrowth of the corrupt depraved evil of the basic plot of the book. Karen and Gillian, Tracy and Gina, they all try to teach Buster how to make maple sugar and syrup. In God's plan women should never be teachers because they are easily deceived. 1 Timothy 2:11-14 "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression".
Contrary to your depiction of "one parent" as a closed minded bigot, she is a hero fighting the very forces of hell (ie. you liberal writers). She is empowered by the Bible to apply God's justice upon those who offend Him. Psalm 137:9 "Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!"
Of course I expect you to disagree with me (and God) but again I must remind you that as a man my views are more important than yours. In God's perfect word , the Bible, God expressly says men are worth more, and actually provides dollar amounts proving this. Leviticus 27:1-7 "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the Lord by thy estimation. And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. And if it be from sixty years old and above, if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female, ten shekels"
Praying that God returns you to the fires of Texas.
TOM
"I find it odd that supporting a book that presents a favorable view of same-sex relationships is perfectly acceptable, while opposing it is thought to constitute an unwarranted imposition of religious values."
This argument makes no sense to me, although it's similar to the one that the parents I mentioned in my first post have made, so I would appreciate hearing more of your point of view. Because I truly can't understand it. Here's my take on it:
Same-sex couples are people your child might run into on the street. The book just describes the world, it doesn't endorse anything. If your child is in class with a child whose parents are same-sex, do you also want to somehow hide that from them?
And? What's the point?
The point that conservative Christian parents make is that liberal secularism functions as a kind of religion, complete with its own worldview and moral system.
Just because they say that or think that doesn't make it true.
M - I haven't read it, but what you describe in "Julia of the Wolves" can, in no way, compare to “Lilly’s moms, Tracy and Gina, were very good cooks.” I have to say, I probably would have had that same reaction as well.
I see where you are coming from and don't say that I disagree with your points in totality. I guess I just find it pretty sad that a community who has a history of literally calling people witches is still out there. In all though, I guess the "community" did collectively agree that the book was harmless as the board decided to keep it.
LMR - Exactly, maybe one kid finds it and is a little more adjusted. That is who the book is aimed at, I don't think any other kid would even grasp it.
TOM - BEST COMMENT EVA!
"Thou shalt not steal" in front of a bank!
Ha ha ha ha!
gal - I don't understand it either. I think the only person I fit in here with is my husband.
Mare - It's really bizarre. Just yesterday, Paul was in the co-op and some woman standing in line next to him just started talking to him. Nice enough. Within seconds he said she asked where he went to church. He just said we don't - and she just kept going about what you can wear, etc. He couldn't get his feed loaded fast enough!
Alex - right?
john - I totally agree with this for kids. Me on the other hand? I'd have withdrawals!
Do y'all not go to church because you're not sure what to wear?