I like this idea but my experience is once you get the adulation somehow you shift from playing a role to being a true believer. Lush Rimshot is a prime example.
Tell me you don't interact with kids in real life without telling me you don't interact with kids in real life.
I wish the market would take care of this. Anybody who openly denies service for stupid reasons doesn’t want my patronage.
If an elementary school student could sit down, read the actual bible, and get anything out of it, he's going to turn out just fine. Adult themes are hardly going to derail him. I don't see why anyone would want to hamper someone that precocious by consigning him to kids' picture books.
I wish I could remember the quote and who said it but the gist was banning books that children can read results in children who are just as ignorant and closed minded as the book banners.
If we're going to allow such discrimination (and I'm not saying we should), I suppose we could require businesses to post their restrictions on the storefronts, websites, etc., so potential customers would at least know, and if they don't comply with those requirements, they would lose that defense.
So are books where a kid have a mommy and daddy are okay but a book where a penguin has two dads is not.
I like that and I would like a way to keep a tally so a business could see how being a backward looking bigot costs them.
Yeah, with the Bible, we're also talking about very lengthy and dense text with many versions at least being written in a way that even many adults miss a lot if they're not relying upon summaries written by other people. If a kid is mature enough to voluntarily sit down, focus, and comprehend passages about "spilling seed," I imagine they're probably mature enough to digest what they're reading and have already been exposed to these concepts anyway.
Under traditional standards including that of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden 15 years ago… yes. Now the law may make things dicey, but that doesn’t change the status quo for the bulk of human history.
To you it is, to me it isn't. I'm not arrogant enough to think we're that much smarter than everyone who came before us.
I don’t think I know more than everyone who came before me. I just know that I learned more math and physics than newton was taught in school. I bow to his genius that figured out more than I ever learned or was taught.
The point I was trying to make was that you are okay with teaching things like you were taught like a family means a husband and a wife and their natural born children. I don’t know if that was the norm at any time.
Did you read what I posted? Because it literally answers each of these questions (with no, no, and no). Your "council of parents" is called a school board. I will post this again for you: The Supreme Court has found a reasonable way of balancing it: "Petitioners rightly possess significant discretion to determine the content of their school libraries. But that discretion may not be exercised in a narrowly partisan or political manner. If a Democratic school board, motivated by party affiliation, ordered the removal of all books written by or in favor of Republicans, few would doubt that the order violated the constitutional rights of the students denied access to those books. The same conclusion would surely apply if an all-white school board, motivated by racial animus, decided to remove all books authored by blacks or advocating racial equality and integration. Our Constitution does not permit the official suppression of ideas. Thus whether petitioners' removal of books from their school libraries denied respondents their First Amendment rights depends upon the motivation behind petitioners' actions. If petitioners intended by their removal decision to deny respondents access to ideas with which petitioners disagreed, and if this intent was the decisive factor in petitioners' decision, then petitioners have exercised their discretion in violation of the Constitution. To permit such intentions to control official actions would be to encourage the precise sort of officially prescribed orthodoxy unequivocally condemned in Barnette. On the other hand, respondents implicitly concede that an unconstitutional motivation would not be demonstrated if it were shown that petitioners had decided to remove the books at issue because those books were pervasively vulgar. And again, respondents concede that if it were demonstrated that the removal decision was based solely upon the educational suitability of the books in question, then their removal would be perfectly permissible. In other words, in respondents' view such motivations, if decisive of petitioners' actions, would not carry the danger of an official suppression of ideas, and thus would not violate respondents' First Amendment rights."
Removing a book from a school library isn't a First Amendment violation. Removing a book from a school library to suppress ideas you dislike is. And if your argument that it's not "age appropriate" is because it has a same-sex couple, you better be removing all books that have heterosexual couples. But we both know you're not advocating for that. So it has nothing to do with "age appropriateness" and everything to do with suppressing ideas you don't like.
I support gay marriage on a state law level, and I support the rights of gay couples to adopt children. I believe people are born gay and can’t be turned straight no matter how much anyone tries. And, I’m fine with these books being available to high school and perhaps even middle school students. You’re talking to the wrong guy to accuse of something like that. I support the idea, but that doesn’t mean everyone else has to, and it’s not the school’s role to push that view on children. If you think politically charged books for children are age appropriate I hope conservatives start pushing conservative propaganda books for children in school libraries, we’ll see how much you like it then. The second you cry foul I will remind you of this conversation.
The school isn't "pushing" that view on children by having a book available in the library. A school also isn't pushing "conservative propaganda" on children if it has a book about Ronald Reagan in the library. I'm not worried about the threat you're making. I'm also not talking to the "wrong guy." You've spent your time in this thread arguing that we should ban those books from (at a minimum) elementary school libraries because some "traditional" conservatives don't like them.
