'Challenges our authority': School board in Florida bans book about book bans

[Zaha Torte]

Seems like attempts like this to shift the burden of proof might be less effective than, oh, I don't know, actually reading the book and quoting what is so horribly offensive to children.

When parents do that at School Board meetings, they are told that what they are reading is inappropriate and are escorted out of the building and labelled "domestic terrorists".

It's not necessarily offensive to children--that's not the problem. The problem is that they might read it before someone tells them that they are supposed to be offended by it.

Sounds like you want to "groom" other people's children.

 

[BCP1928]

When parents do that at School Board meetings, they are told that what they are reading is inappropriate and are escorted out of the building and labelled "domestic terrorists".

Sound like you want to indoctrinate other people's children.

No, I just don't see any reason why you should do it.

 

[Zaha Torte]

No, I just don't see any reason why you should do it.

You don't see any reason why I should parent my children?

 

[Pommer]

You don't see any reason why I should parent my children?

If your children are reading books that you’d rather them not read (yet), that isn’t the library’s “fault”, (for having them on the shelves).

 

[BCP1928]

You don't see any reason why I should parent my children?

I don't see any reason why you should indoctrinate other people's children.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I don't know, actually reading the book and quoting what is so horribly offensive to children.

AFAICT, the real reason is in the OP: The book challenges government authority.

Traditionally, that might have been welcome in the GOP, but as it slips into popular authoritarianism, well, this is what you get.

 

[Zaha Torte]

I don't see any reason why you should indoctrinate other people's children.

You have already confirmed everything that I and other parents have been saying when you exposed your hand in Post #119 when you said,

"It's not necessarily offensive to children--that's not the problem. The problem is that they might read it before someone tells them that they are supposed to be offended by it."

This answers the question of motivation - why so many people feel the need to have certain books remain available to children - it is so they can usurp the authority and responsibility of the parents.

They want to install a morality into children before parents have a chance to - which is why they want to expose younger and younger children to this inappropriate content.

Parents teach their children about what is or is not appropriate to help keep their children safe - like don't go with an adult you don't know - for example.

Yet - there is so much to go over - so many threats - that not all threats can be covered at once - like that one scene from Stephen King's IT (when a little girl had a train ran on her) - because their children are so young - they did not feel the need to go into that yet.

Unlike these perverted activists - parents actually love their children - they don't see them as pawns to exploit for activism or perversion - so they don't feel the need to rush them into adult content - they want them to be kids.

And now here you are - openly declaring what motivates you - to get to the kids before parents have had a chance to prepare them - validating what we have been saying.

You attempted to veil this as an issue about government overreach and censorship - but we all now know what actually motivates you.

 

[Zaha Torte]

If your children are reading books that you’d rather them not read (yet), that isn’t the library’s “fault”, (for having them on the shelves).

If my kid gets a porno magazine from the daycare - I will have words for those who run the daycare.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Do you believe that a religiously neutral discussion of religion(s) in a public school setting is wrong?

No - but not having a discussion about religion in a public school setting does not stop anyone from reading the Book of Mormon or from practicing their religion.

My senior year of high school we had an elective class called Contemporary Issues, the first half of the school year we covered various world religions. When Christianity is discussed, there were several representative groups included, the year I took it we had a Mormon representative, a Catholic representative, a Jehovah's Witness representative, and a Calvary Chapel representative offer their different takes and understandings of Christianity. Each year was different, the goal was to be as unbiased and neutral. We also had someone come in to talk about Judaism, someone came in to talk about Islam, two people came in to talk about Buddhism, there was also a Wiccan represntative, and a couple people from the local Bahai community talk about their religion.

We prefer to be called Latter-day Saints - since that is what we are actually called.

I am glad you got to have that experience.

I see no reason to ban or censor discussions about religion in a public school setting.

The second half the class discussed current world events, again attempting to be neutral, offering differing political views on major subjects with American politics, and the class focused on emphasizing critical thinking, objectivity, and forming one's own opinion by listening to a diversity of views--religious, political, etc.

It was arguably the best class I took my final year in high school Exposing students to variety, to the unfamiliar, and teaching students to learn how to think for themselves are good things.

You realize that we are talking about a book intended for fourth graders - right?

I'm not interested, sorry. Think and feel about that however you wish, that's cool. You do you.

-CryptoLutheran

I figured this would be your reaction - and it is the smart move for you.

You should really know something about a topic before engaging in a discussion about it.

Otherwise, you would just be making claims you cannot back up - like you did earlier.

 

[A2SG]

Why, that would require actually parenting. And there is nothing these parents rights people hate more than the idea of actually being a parent to their children. They would much rather have big daddy government insure there is no situation that could come up where they would have to have a difficult conversation with their own kids.

Back when my kid was younger, I actually encouraged difficult conversations. I'd rather a kid have questions than be told they can't even think about something, or be exposed to new ideas. My job as a parent is to teach my kid about the world (at least, as best I can), not to limit their exposure to the world.

They're going to have to deal with the world at some point, with or without me. Best to prepare them for it rather than insulate them from it.

I had no problem allowing my kid to read books that have been banned by certain moralistic busybodies, like "To Kill A Mockingbird," for example. It helped my kid to grow up and be able to read any book out there, and make up their own mind about what they're supposed to learn from it.

-- A2SG, it did lead to one or two strange "difficult conversations", but nothing I wasn't able to figure out a way to handle.....

 

[KCfromNC]

When parents do that at School Board meetings, they are told that what they are reading is inappropriate and are escorted out of the building and labelled "domestic terrorists".

Can't help but notice there's still no explanation of what it so objectionable about this particular book. Random mashups of right wing talking points doesn't change that.

 

[KCfromNC]

Unlike these perverted activists - parents actually love their children - they don't see them as pawns to exploit for activism or perversion - so they don't feel the need to rush them into adult content - they want them to be kids.

Accusations like this might carry a bit more weight if it wasn't for the posts admitting to never have seen the book in question and the fact those posts can't actually identify what in this particular book is so offensive.

In fact, readers might wonder why there's a need for diversions such as these personal attacks towards other forum members if the content of the book in question was so clearly and obviously offensive. If there were such a slam dunk like that from the facts, why the need paragraph after paragraph not talking about the content of the actual book in question.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

Back when my kid was younger, I actually encouraged difficult conversations. I'd rather a kid have questions than be told they can't even think about something, or be exposed to new ideas. My job as a parent is to teach my kid about the world (at least, as best I can), not to limit their exposure to the world.

They're going to have to deal with the world at some point, with or without me. Best to prepare them for it rather than insulate them from it.

I had no problem allowing my kid to read books that have been banned by certain moralistic busybodies, like "To Kill A Mockingbird," for example. It helped my kid to grow up and be able to read any book out there, and make up their own mind about what they're supposed to learn from it.

-- A2SG, it did lead to one or two strange "difficult conversations", but nothing I wasn't able to figure out a way to handle.....

It’s part of being a parent. My daughter is only 3 but the only books I keep here from checking out are books we actually have at home already.

I try to ask her every night if she has any questions about the day (though I know I sometimes forget). Most times she has none but sometimes she does and she is also in the “Why?/Whats that?” stage. She asks tons of questions. Just this morning I explained what Juneteenth I s to her. Other things I’ve explained in the last couple of weeks are: labor unions earning the right to have off on weekends, why people of Central Europe had to get strong militarily, and how our circulatory system works.

It is good to encourage questions and answering them is a key part of being a parent.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Back when my kid was younger, I actually encouraged difficult conversations. I'd rather a kid have questions than be told they can't even think about something, or be exposed to new ideas. My job as a parent is to teach my kid about the world (at least, as best I can), not to limit their exposure to the world.

They're going to have to deal with the world at some point, with or without me. Best to prepare them for it rather than insulate them from it.

I had no problem allowing my kid to read books that have been banned by certain moralistic busybodies, like "To Kill A Mockingbird," for example. It helped my kid to grow up and be able to read any book out there, and make up their own mind about what they're supposed to learn from it.

-- A2SG, it did lead to one or two strange "difficult conversations", but nothing I wasn't able to figure out a way to handle.....

The motivation behind these activists is to have those "difficult conversation" with your children before you do - so they can install their morality in them.

This is why they try to expose younger and younger children to inappropriate content - to force those conversations.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Can't help but notice there's still no explanation of what it so objectionable about this particular book. Random mashups of right wing talking points doesn't change that.

I have yet to read the book - but from what others have said - I have come to the conclusion that it is dishonest at least.

Claiming that banning certain books from a public-school library is somehow censorship or "book banning" in general is dishonest.

This book can be read by anyone who wants to read it - the schools are just not providing it.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Accusations like this might carry a bit more weight if it wasn't for the posts admitting to never have seen the book in question and the fact those posts can't actually identify what in this particular book is so offensive.

In fact, readers might wonder why there's a need for diversions such as these personal attacks towards other forum members if the content of the book in question was so clearly and obviously offensive. If there were such a slam dunk like that from the facts, why the need paragraph after paragraph not talking about the content of the actual book in question.

I was obviously not talking about the book in question - but the content of the CF member's post.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Claiming that banning certain books from a public-school library is somehow censorship or "book banning" in general is dishonest.

Banning books is "book banning".

It may not be a First Amendment violation, but it is "book banning".

 

[Zaha Torte]

Banning books is "book banning".

It may not be a First Amendment violation, but it is "book banning".

So, if I cannot find a certain book in a particular library - it was "banned"?

 

[BCP1928]

The motivation behind these activists is to have those "difficult conversation" with your children before you do - so they can install their morality in them.

This is why they try to expose younger and younger children to inappropriate content - to force those conversations.

The motivations behind "these activists" is to have the conversation when it is age-appropriate and necessary because the parents may not be well-informed enough or motivated enough to do it. Children reach sexual maturity gradually, just as they mature in all other ways. There is no magical period of sexual innocence which continues until puberty when the child's sexuality turns on like a light. Forcing that period on them is a form of indoctrination. By the time a child is in the sixth grade, many of his fellow students will already be sexually active, even if only to the point of masturbation; some of the girls will be menstruating and there will already be kids who think they're going to be gay or trans and they talk to each other about it. If you refuse to explain to your kids what these things are, beyond that they are evil and we should pretend they don't happen, that's a form of indoctrination as well.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I figured this would be your reaction - and it is the smart move for you.

You should really know something about a topic before engaging in a discussion about it.

Otherwise, you would just be making claims you cannot back up - like you did earlier.

Don't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back.

-CryptoLUtheran