Posted on 05/22/2006 12:11:31 PM PDT by Borges
Maybe it's the title that turned them off....
Ummmmmmmmm...I didn't say he wasn't.
Someone forced people to not read things? If they used force to stop people from reading something, it was censorship, if not, it wasn't.
"well its nowhere in my city for the same reasons cited."
I do not believe you. Name your city and I will contact the public library there and tell you what shelf it is on, so you can check it out. I have never seen a public library that did not have several copies of the Bible on its shelves.
If you are correct, I will work to get the Bible on that library's shelves.
Sez whom? Please provide evidence to back up your statement.
And a lie can't be perpetuated for 50 years?
Lots of lies are out there. Check out the communist agenda. They've been putting their stuff into our education system for quite a while now.
When a reading list is established, somebody decides what books will be on it, and by definition what books will be left off. If there are 50 books on the list, that means many thousands or millions of books have been "censored."
Somehow, once a book gets onto the list it becomes untouchable, with nobody (not even a school board member!) allowed to venture an opinion that a particular book might not be appropriate and should be considered for replacement by some other book.
In actual fact, of course, this generally only applies to books criticized for sexual content, especially from a conservative point of view.
Books critical of homosexuality or trans-genderism never get on the list in the first place, so there can be no controversy over their removal.
Conclusive Proof:
I was raised in a house where my reading was never censored in any way. My parents didn't keep any books away from me; they figured if something was too "old" for me, I'd just pass over those parts.
Of course, my parents didn't fear books; I grew up in a house with a few thousand of them. A lot of kids today don't grow up with books or reading, so of course it's perceived as something to be wary about.
Uh, "The Botany of Desire"? Where the most salacious thing is the sex life of plants? A disclaimer - I'm only half way through it, but since it is about plants, not sure what he could put in the second half that would be non-plant graphic sex. And if teenagers want to read about the sex lives of plants, more power to them!
Ummmmmmmm....there's actually quite a lot of graphic VERBAL sex, in Shakespeare. If you'd like an explicit example, from THE TAMING OF THE SHREW, I'll tell you about it in private.
The 12th century priest who attacked Richard for being a "sodomite" was a Communist? Who knew?
You seem quite confused for a Senator. LOL
My understanding of this incident is that it wasn't quite this specific.
The King publicly confessed to some unspecified sins of the flesh and was absolved.
However, given the remarkably randy family he came from, it's difficult to see what else could have been at issue.
It's also a fact that, unique in his family, he apparently left no bastards, and that his marriage fell apart.
True.
Richard I was a good king? Um...
You can read that into it, if you like. But it never states so explicitly.
That's just moral relativism. First you start telling your kids that sex isn't evil, the next thing you know they'll be turning tricks for dime bags.
I didn't say he was a good king.
Geesh. Read my earlier post to a likewise confused poster.
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.