You have no faith in God if you call for the banning of a book...

Okay, this is a subject that makes me want to pull out all of my hair. Unfortunately, it's too short, so I'm going to write. I feel a tangent coming on.

You like the title? I've been having fun with those lately.

For me, the obvious implication in the call to ban a book is that someone doesn't have very much faith in his or her belief system. The implicit claim in such an action, banning a book, is that whichever person's political/religious beliefs (usually religious) will not stand up to whatever perspective that is presented in the book.

For instance, if there are homosexuals in a book, many people will object to their children reading the book because, as they see it, theire child will think it's alright to be homosexual. I mean, is that not the problem? Therefore, that person who calls for the banning of the book relegates his own religion by implying that God cannot be more influential on his child than, say, Walker Percy or Cormac McCarthy.

Furthermore, the claim that language is “offensive” really gets under my skin. I was raised in a good Presbyterian household; I went to Cotillion; I still say “yes, ma’am” and “yes, sir” to my parents; yet I have searched and searched for some language that would be particularly offensive to me if I read it or heard it in a movie/song. Even with all of my instruction as far as the proper forms of speech, those forms that are not proper don’t offend me. I feel that I am a more well-rounded person for having been exposed to them and taught why they aren’t effective in daily speech.

To claim that any form of speech is universally improper is disastrous. The instructional value a writer has in using this language to illustrate an aspect of a character or a subject is invaluable. If a child is simply told something is bad, without being shown why, then he will never take seriously the rules that have been given to him.

If a writer puts subject matter or language that is “offensive” in a work, that doesn’t mean the author advocates it. Like I said in class, because Maya Angelou wrote I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings (an autobiography) does that mean that she advocates molesting and raping little girls? Why shouldn’t a young person be exposed to that? Is he going to read it and think otherwise?

This comes back to the religious aspect. I grew up Presbyterian and went to both Catholic and Baptist schools. In the course of all that, I was given twenty of the 100 banned books as required reading, and I’m so appreciative of that.

The reason I bring that up is I believe any belief one has that is not his/her own is a heresy (to paraphrase Milton). You cannot force someone to believe what you believe, no matter how right you feel you are. I’ve found this to be one of the most frustrating aspects of life. The only thing you can do is force someone to act like they believe in what you believe. You can’t change their heart.

With that understood, any truly religious person should advocate the reading of materials that are adverse to his beliefs along with the texts of their religion. For, if their children don’t come to the same conclusion as their parents, they are probably better of than if they forced the children to act as thought they believed.

I honestly believe that if you can’t defend your religion with reason, then you should question why you believe what you believe. The truth is that most people who are free to search out their religious beliefs on their own come to the same conclusions.

Using reason in religion is often seen as doubting, in that it questions religion, but you have to remember that even the apostles questioned Jesus. They lived with him, and they still questioned him. If we model ourselves after the apostles, then it is our duty to arrive at our own conclusions about religion.