Posted on 04/12/2016 3:13:05 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The American Library Association has revealed that the Bible is among the books most often challenged and called to be banned in libraries.
"You have people who feel that if a school library buys a copy of the Bible, it's a violation of church and state," said James LaRue, who directs the Office for Intellectual Freedom for the American Library Association, according to The Associated Press.
"And sometimes there's a retaliatory action, where a religious group has objected to a book and a parent might respond by objecting to the Bible."
Guidelines for the Office for Intellectual Freedom have clarified that including Bibles in the library does not violate the separation of church and state, as long as it is not endorsed or promoted above other religious material.
While the Bible ranked at No. 6 on the list, most of the other books were objected to because of sexually explicit content, or because of having an LGBT theme.
The LA Times released the full list, which includes: Looking for Alaska by John Green at the very top, due to its sexually explicit nature. Fifty Shades of Grey by E.L. James came in at second for the same reasons, while books such as I am Jazz, Beyond Magenta: Transgender Teens Speak Out, and Two Boys Kissing focused on LGBT themes.
The association clarified, however, that the list of challenged books is not comprehensive, and offers only a snapshot of reports.
"[T]he Top Ten Most Frequently Challenged Books list should be seen as a snapshot of the reports [the Office for Intellectual Freedom] receives and not an exhaustive report," it said.
"[S]urveys indicate up to 85 percent of book challenges receive no media attention and remain unreported."
Some evangelical voices, such as Creation Museum CEO and President Ken Ham, have suggested that due to the rising tide of secularism across the Western world, it might not be long before the Bible is publicly banned.
Last month, Ham commented on a case involving a prison chaplain who was forced to resign from his post after being warned by authorities not to read verses from the Bible dealing with homosexuality.
"This is an alarming example of how quickly Christians are losing religious freedom across the West. In this case, it wasn't even acceptable for this chaplain to use God's Word during a chapel service — a completely voluntary service where those attending would expect to hear from God's Word. It won't be long before we see this happening in other countries, including America," Ham responded
"And really, the authorities are saying the Bible itself is not suitable for people! How long before it will be outlawed?"
Has any library ever removed the Bible because it was challenged??
Of course, prayer rugs should be required.(/s)
Source Information:
The top 10 banned or challenged books of 2015
-
http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-et-jc-bible-top-10-challenged-books-2015-20160411-20160411-snap-htmlstory.html
-
1. “Looking for Alaska,” by John Green
Reasons: Offensive language, sexually explicit, and unsuited to age group
2. “Fifty Shades of Grey,” by E. L. James
Reasons: Sexually explicit, unsuited to age group, and other (“poorly written,” “concerns that a group of teenagers will want to try it”)
3. “I Am Jazz,” by Jessica Herthel and Jazz Jennings
Reasons: Inaccurate, homosexuality, sex education, religious viewpoint, and unsuited to age group
4. “Beyond Magenta: Transgender Teens Speak Out,” by Susan Kuklin
Reasons: Anti-family, offensive language, homosexuality, sex education, political viewpoint, religious viewpoint, unsuited to age group, and other (“wants to remove from collection to ward off complaints”)
5. “The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time,” by Mark Haddon
Reasons: Offensive language, religious viewpoint, unsuited to age group, and other (“profanity and atheism”)
6. The Bible
Reasons: Religious viewpoint
7. “Fun Home,” by Alison Bechdel
Reasons: Violence, and other (“graphic images”)
8. “Habibi,” by Craig Thompson
Reasons: Nudity, sexually explicit, and unsuited to age group
9. “Nasreen’s Secret School: A True Story from Afghanistan,” by Jeanette Winter
Reasons: Religious viewpoint, unsuited to age group, and violence
10. “Two Boys Kissing,” by David Levithan
Reasons: Homosexuality, and other (“condones public displays of affection”)
Well, I guess I found a new reading list. I tried to read 50 Shades. I could not get through it. Not because I am against sexy content, but because it was so poorly written. The plot was crap from the first paragraph. It read like something a high school girl who has never been kissed thinks life is like.
Bingo!
Did the Koran make the list?
And yet they allow porn on the computers.
Perversity is now good, morality is now evil.
Since this post is a little long, consider that the first part of this post is a summary of 10th Amendment (10A)-protect state power to address religious issues. The second part of this post explains how those powers were stolen from the states by FDR’s activist justices imo.
To begin with, note that the Founding States had decided that the states did not have to respect the rights protect by the Bill of Rights (BoR) which the states drafted and ratified. Only the feds had to respect those rights. So regardless that the Founding States had made the 1st Amendment (1A) in part to prohibit the power to make religion-related laws entirely to the feds, the states still had the 10A-protected power to make such laws.
But when the states later ratified the 14th Amendment (14A), that amendment ratified under very questionable circumstances, the states obligated themselves to likewise respect any rights that they amend the Constitution to expressly protect.
And it remains that 1A still prohibits the feds from making religion-related laws.
But whereas the states have always had the 10th Amendment-protected power to legislatively address religious issues, that power is now limited, but not prohibited, by the 14th Amendment as the drafters of that amendment had intended for it to be understood.
With these things in mind, the material below was borrowed from a related thread and attempts to explain how 10A-protected power of the states to legislatively address religious issues was stolen by FDR era, state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices imo. The key to understanding the perspective of this material is the following.
Protestants evidently brought their religious civil war with Roman Catholics from England to the USA, Irish Catholic immigrants possibly the biggest target of Protestant lawmakers in the 19th century. This is evidenced by the following book authored by Philip Hamburger.
Philip Hamburger: The Separation of Church and State
Anti-Catholic, state sovereignty-ignoring justices of the FDR era later evidently wrongly allowed their bias against Catholics to affect case decisions. The following material provides more details of the events that led to outcome-driven decisions, imo, by the Supremes in cases dealing with 10A-protected state power to address religious issues.
To begin with, let’s examine how FDR’s activist justices misrepresented “atheist" Thomas Jefferson and his "wall of church and state separation" with respect to the Founding States intentions for 1A’s prohibition on Congresss power to regulate religion.
In stark contrast to what FDRs activist justices evidently wanted everybody to think about Jefferson’s "wall of separation," it turns out that the real Thomas Jefferson had explained that the states had made the 10th Amendment (10A) in part to clarify that the states had retained uniquely to themselves the power to address religious issues, regardless that the states had made 1A in part to prohibit such powers entirely to Congress.
"3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that -the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people-: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed [emphasis added]; …“ — Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798 .
Although 14A later expressly applied only the Constitutions privileges and immunities to the states, FDR’s anti-state sovereignty justices argued that 14A also applied 1A’s prohibition on Congress’s power to make religion-related laws to the states.
"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws [emphasis added]. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect.” --Mr. Justice Roberts, Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 1940.
But two things that FDRs activist justices wrongly ignored concerning their statement in Cantwell are as follows. First, the congressional record shows that Bingham had clarified that 14A did not take away state powers.
"The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights [emphasis added] that belong to the States.” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of first column)
"No right [emphasis added] reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired …” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See top half of 1st column)
"Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State [emphasis added]? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existence.” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column)
Based on Binghams clarification that 14A preserved state powers, the states still had the 10A-protected power, as Jefferson had indicated, to make religion-based laws, although such such laws are now limited by 14A.
In fact, Justice Reed had noted that it was the job of judges to balance 10A-protected state powers with 14A protected rights.
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of civil liberties would be a mockery.” —Justice Reed, Jones v. City of Opelika, 1942.
But a more powerful example of evidence of wrongdoing by FDRs thug justices concerning their stifling of 10A-protected state power to legislatively address religious issues, such power evidenced by the Jefferson excerpt above, is the following.
Based on the language in the Cantwell excerpt above, FDRs justices essentially used their PC interpretation of 14A as an excuse to effectively interpolate a constitutional amendment that prohibits the states from making religion-based laws, just like 1A prohibits Congress from making such laws.
Consider that such an amendment to the Constitution might read in part as follows.
"No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . ."
But here is the clincher regarding the Court’s dishonest application of 1A-prohibited religious power to Congress to the states via 14A. Several years after the ratification of 14A (1868) Representative James Blaine pushed for an anti-Roman Catholic amendment to the Constitution (1875) that began with the exact wording that the ”hypothetical” wording above that FDRs thug justices seemingly based their statement in Cantwell on.
"No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations."
But what FDR’s anti-Catholic justices most certainly did not want citizens to know concerning their tortured interpolation of 14A in Cantwell, claiming that it applied 1A’s prohibition on religious laws to Congress to the states, is this. The pre-17th Amendment Senate had failed to pass Rep. Blaine’s proposed amendment in the Constitution’s Article V amendment process. By not passing the proposed Blaine amendment, the Senate discredited the Court’s later interpolation of 14A in Cantwell imo, that interpretation ignoring 10A-protected state power to address religious issues.
The bottom line is that there is basically nothing unconstitutional about school libraries buying a copy of the Holy Bible, regardless of gossip, rumors and hearsay that doing so is a violation of separation of church and state.
However, such items should be provided though donations imo, as opposed to from local and state revenues.
Insights, corrections welcome.
Each year the American Library Association fakes the “Banned Books Week” list to drum up business for itself. In reality, very few books are challenged and none have been banned since 1963. One year I found out the top listed book was challenged only four times all year across the entire USA. Big whoop. That same year the author of the ninth-listed book revealed that ALA told her others where challenged more than hers but since it dealt with homosexuality, they put it on the list.
See:
http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2011/09/banned-books-week-is-gay-promotion.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.