Interesting new reason to ban Harry Potter...

[MystyGlyttyr]

I don't normally post two of these in two days, but I've been browsing like mad today, and this one just floored me.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070529/...potter_protest

Most of the story is just your standard parent-fighting-for-whatever story, blah blah. It's the last two paragraphs where you will find the interesting part. Read them, think about the argument she makes in the first of the paragraphs, THEN debate the very next sentence that is quoted from her.

*gets raincoat to hide from explodey brains*

[Pedersen]

You ever have one of those moments where you want to say something, but your brain has just hit that immovable object, and you can't get it moving again to get something to come out?

That just happened to me. I am completely floored. The idiocy of this argument from her... She tops EJ (one of my former managers), and that's a damned hard thing to do.

Just ... wow...

[AFpheonix]

Uh.......KABLOOIE!!

Great....I'll go get a mop now....

I envision her children going to college and getting laid under a table at the first frat party they go to.

[DesignFox]

AFphoenix, you say some of the funniest shit ever.......

Seriously, some people just need better things to do with their spare time.

It's wrong to read Harry Potter because witchcraft is a religion...but we need more God in our schools... um, last time I checked, Christianity was a religion, too! Also, I seem to recall studying the Book of Job in my high school English class...and talking about Christian allegory... So, I don't see what her argument is since the range of stories I remember reading in English covered a vast range of philosphical and religious material.

[sportsmom]

To quote Hermione Granger...


What. An. Idiot.

[Banrion]

At Tuesday's hearing, Mallory argued in part that witchcraft is a religion practiced by some people and, therefore, the books should be banned because reading them in school violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

"I have a dream that God will be welcomed back in our schools again," Mallory said. "I think we need him."

That there is a special kind of bigot.

[morgana]

Wow. Can you say "hypocrite", boys and girls?

[iradney]

I didn't know that books detailing the battle between good and evil should be banned in schools. Hell, obviously being taught how to think for yourself is bad!
Btw, update - the courts basically said that the books can stay. The lady now wants to take this to federal court? Aren't there more important things to worry about, like lack of education??

[ArenaBoy]

*Reads link*

*Head explodes*

[Kara]

I know I'll be bordering on Fratching material here, but...

The separation of church and state as outlined by the constitution is the single most misunderstood item in the entire freaking document. A group of people came to this land seeking religious freedom from a government that gave them no choice in their faith. In this spirit, what the framers of the constitution meant by this was that the government cannot come out and say "From now on, all citizens are now (insert religion)." They meant that we are free to decide for ourselves what branch of what particular religion we want to practice. They did not ever mean that you can't say "One Nation, under God" in the pledge of allegiance (if they did, it wouldn't be there for crying out loud!). They did not mean that the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed outside a federal courthouse (fun fact: they weren't originally there. They were given to the courts as a publicity stunt by Cecil B. DeMille to promote "The Ten Commandments"). They did not mean that a teacher can't have a bible (or a torah, or a koran, or a necronomicon, or whatever) in his or her desk.

The entire point was that if you don't agree with one belief or another faith, then you are free to choose for yourself what you believe is right. It doesn't mean you can scream and protest until every book containing the word "God" (or Allah, or Jehova, or Harry Potter as the case may be) is taken away and burned, or that the pledge of allegiance has to be changed (if it truly bothers you that much, then don't say it and let others who don't mind say what they will), and that every school and government employee who is practicing their chosen faith is fired because of those beliefs. That's called persecution.

*waits for post to be deleted*

[Pedersen]

They did not ever mean that you can't say "One Nation, under God" in the pledge of allegiance (if they did, it wouldn't be there for crying out loud!).

I'll hope yours isn't deleted, because there's one thing I'd like to point out for history/completeness sake: The Pledge of Allegiance was not written when many people seem to think it was. Your post seems to imply that it was written around the same time as the Constitution. It was not. From http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm :

Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).

Not going to discuss rightness or wrongness of any of the religious debate, though. This is purely a historical correction.

[Rapscallion]

It's more likely to be closed than deleted. It's stayed civil, but if anyone feels they need to add that it should probably be on Fratching, just start a thread there and post a link to it here. We like to keep it so that people don't get offended here, but anyone going there is opening themselves to 'challenging' ideas.

Rapscallion

[sportsmom]

Man, I love my 12 yo. I read the last few paragraphs of this article to her and when I got to the end she looked at me and said "She was playing in the kiddie end of the gene pool. wasn't she?"

She is so my kid.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

And here's the best part, boys and girls! She's never read any of the books!

[habitofbeingright]

That there is a special kind of bigot.

Wow. Can you say "hypocrite", boys and girls?

um yea guys i really suggest you look up those words before you feel like big kids and foam off at the mouth again. She isn't a hipocrite because you disagree with her. she would be a hypocrite if she made the lawsuit and had the 7th book on reserve.
As far as bigot goes. everyone knows the story of the boy who cried wolf. This is yet another case where a word that is made to demonize someone you don't agree with to end debate. and thus is the reason for the death of free exchange of ideas in our society. you lose passion for the overly and wrongfully used words and they lose their meanings. So when a true bigot such as fred phelps comes along, labeling him a bigot will have no force. Why?? because you have decided that if someone happens to be a christian and disagree with you that they are bigots. At worst her drive to get it banned is meaningless and she probably knows she won't get it banned.
If you are going to be so judgemental, at least be more orginial, use adjectives that fit, not ones that you see other people call christians to shut us up. Maybe harry potter should be banned but not for her reason, but the reason that fans that get so blindly outraged againist a person who wouldn't really be able to change anything anyways arn't getting the vocab. that more mature books can give. Harry Potters reading level is that of elementary school. Its merely alittle longer.
BTW i'm reserving my copy tomorrow at barnes and noble. i might also get "call of the wild" or another cookbook