13

What the Hell America? Study Shows More Americans than Ever Support Banning Books

Posted by Zenphamy 4 years ago to Philosophy
76 comments | Share | Flag

From the Article: "According to a recently released Harris Poll survey, the number of Americans who would support the banning of books has doubled between the years of 2011 and 2015.

28% of the 2,244 U.S. adults surveyed answered yes to the question “Do you think that there are any books which should be banned completely?” This same question was answered yes just 18% of the time back in 2011 when the survey was taken last.

“While it’s still a minority perception … I felt that from 18 to 28 percent in just four years was a rather surprising growth,” Harris Poll Research Manager Larry Shannon-Missal told Library Journal.

Some of the questions were relating to what children should be able to read in school, while others asked which books should be taken off the marketplace entirely.

What was also interesting about the study was the fact that 71% of those surveyed, even those who did not support the banning of books, were open to books being rated in a way similar to movies. Also, it seemed that many people wanted to ban books that were controversial and opposed their religious beliefs. Some of those surveyed wanted to ban the Bible, while others wanted the Koran banned, others wanted any books banned that supported the ideas of creationism, and still others wanted to ban atheist texts."
-------------------------------------------
What the Hell is Right. Satan's Crispy Balls
Religious belief systems keep screwing with freedom and liberty.
SOURCE URL: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/americans-government-start-banning-books/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Eudaimonia 4 years ago
    I'd be interested to see a similar poll done exclusively on college campi in the United States, especially in the so called Ivy League.

    I expect that the results would shock most people.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years ago
      Do you really think we can still be shocked?
      This poll really disgusts me.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by XenokRoy 4 years ago
        It disgusts me, but it is not surprising to me.

        We have approximately 27% of the population completely dependent on the government and another 20% partially dependent on the government.

        It would be interesting to see the poll done in the Ivy league schools and then also in the parasite populations of the country. What would be the difference?

        We have jumped 20% in the number of people living off the government since 2008. It is logical that overtime that would also cause an increase in those that feel no need to educate themselves. They do not need to for self preservation.

        I have a niece that thinks that philosophy, religion and anything against the federal government should be banded from discussion. All related books removed as well. I quote her "those things make people think, and then they just want to destroy everything and not accept anything [that the government does]" brackets added for context. She is one of those that is completely dependent on the government for her, and her two children's existence.

        Six years ago she would not have said such a thing, she was working at a McDonnalds as a shift manager and liked her job. What happened? She figured out that by having a couple of kids and being a stay at home mom she could make more money. She then acted on this and the rapid rate at which her mind, and moral system, have decayed is staggering. Combine this with the increase in people that have done just this kind of thing and the numbers in this study are not surprising.

        We are in luck in that the second child caused complications that will keep her from having any more, otherwise we would have more little illiterate welfare cases being supported by taxes with no need to become literate and more government help should they become "special needs" as they grow up. As it is we have two form her that will become "special needs" should she figure out that doing so will get her bus rides, bus attendants, extra time at school and less time for her to be a mom. All of which would be a big plus to her, and further her own and her children illiterate behaviors.

        If we continue that cycle it can only get worse.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jdg 4 years ago
      I would expect the management are more in favor of banning ideas than anyone else on campus; the faculty somewhat less, and the students least. But of course there's enough existing censorship that the objectors don't dare speak up, unless they have tenure.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 4 years ago
      I agree. I bet we'd be surprised. I personally am torn regarding some books showing up in jr high and HS libraries. But parents and teachers can help to navigate that. One time in here there was a thread about how old people should be when they first read AS. I think (informally) alot of people say they were 14 when they first read the book. At 14, I would have missed so much, I'm not sure I would have identified the same way. It's completely a personal experience. But the mom made that same argument-she thought 16 was a more appropriate age and that's the agreement she and her daughter had. I thought it was interesting they had an agreement. In my house you could read whatever was on the shelf. So one time, I was 13, I pulled down a book called Tobacco Road. I'll never forget the feeling of "I'm too young for this." lol
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by TheRealBill 4 years ago
      I'd want to see it broken out into "hard" vs. "soft" programs/sciences. I'd bet you'll see a lot more willingness to ban on the "soft" science professors and students than on the "hard" sciences (such as chemistry, physics, etc.).
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jabuttrick 4 years ago
      You bet. You would get very high numbers for banning books which purportedly supported "discrimination," "racism," "homophobia" or, worst of all (and ironically), "intolerance." In fact, I bet a high percentage of college students would advocate banning books which opposed "diversity" or which supported "selfishness."
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  ObjectiveAnalyst 4 years ago
    Disgusting. It starts very early these days when kids are not taught critical thinking, but to join in the collective system and follow directive_.
    Always being independent and not much of a team player, I learned long ago that as long as I could read and books were available, I could teach myself anything needed regardless of other peoples agendas. The internet is a great source of information, but it can be censored; Not so with the books in my library.. at least until the salamander rounds the corner. Welcome to Fahrenheit 451.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Eyecu2 4 years ago
    I don't support the banning of any book. I do however strongly suggest that Parents monitor and guide what books that their children read. I myself have several books that I don't feel my 15 year old daughter should read yet. 50 shades of Grey is a good example of what I don't feel she is ready for.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jabuttrick 4 years ago
      Right, but you are not confusing parenting with the proper role of government. Many do, and most of those that do identify as Republicans on First Amendment issues. They are Democrats when economic issues are being discussed.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by BenFrank 4 years ago
    This was was really interesting. Thank you for sharing the link and the article. I have to admit I am more disappointed than shocked. Political correctness is censoring us at every level and much of that began due to attorneys and corporations. My wife works in the corporate world and swears that if there is a way to remove every adjective from the English language it will be a corporate attorney who finds it. Since we are being constantly pilloried to fall in line with the most popular group think of the moment why would book banning be far behind? Besides, haven't you heard? No one reads books any more so who will it affect?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years ago
      Political Correctness, although i fully appreciate attorneys' contributions, is an off-shoot of Psychology's Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (semantic thinking, also a branch of 'brainwashing techniques' developed during those times) of the late 50's and 60's which correlates with several other works related to nurture vs nature thinking about personality developments even including the famous "Power of Positive Thinking". PC is just a larger scale method of such control and manipulation techniques.

      Cause and effect.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by BenFrank 4 years ago
        Thank you for your insight Zenphamy. I will share this with my wife. It certainly won't make her feel any better but may assist her by simply being more informed of the source.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by JoleneMartens1982 4 years ago
    It is the same old son and dance something in every piece of literature offends someone. I am personally offended by the ridiculous crap that passes for books for kids. I monitor what my kids read, I read some pretty offensive literature, I wouldn't be surprised if Atlas Shrugged is on most lists for banning. God forbid we fight the system, think freely, or see the real picture for what it truly is. I say leave our Constitution alone. Most amendments that have been made offend me, put that question in there survey, oh wait, that would distract from the agenda...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 4 years ago
    Disgusting.

    More people who want the government to control availability, rather than simply being able to control their kids.

    It is interesting that conservatives are out front with this view. This is consistent with them trying to control social issues, which is inconsistent with them trying to liberate fiscal issues, but I doubt any of them really think objectively.

    Also interesting that more education reduces the percentage of this view, as well as independents having the lowest percentage. However, the total percentage is scary.

    I view the entire subject as an inability to deal with raising children, disbelief others have the ability or both, and seeking the government to take this over.

    I wonder how many people would answer "yes" to the question: "Do you think the government should take over raising children to avoid the pitfalls parents run into?" I bet the result is even scarier!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 4 years ago
    and I find it extraordinarily distressing that the nation was
    founded with religious freedom in mind -- and now, this kind of
    crap is rampant. . Can't We Just Be Free???!!! -- j
    .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by maxgeoac 4 years ago
    Ray Bradbury, Aldous Huxley, Ayn Rand, and George Orwell novels were not meant to be guide books, bur rather warnings. I am also fairly sure that most of these authors wouldn't be on the "Banned Book List" because their words can be twisted to fit.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jabuttrick 4 years ago
      Hard to twist Rand to fit collectivist thinking wouldn't you think?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by TheRealBill 4 years ago
        Not really. If you shift your point of view to the as-written heroes of, say, Atlas Shrugged, to be the villains you can posit as a valiant but failed struggle of The Anointed against the individualists:

        Look at how willing those individualists were to let, even encourage, society suffer in order to get what they wanted - control. And that, children, is why we must be more vigilant and go after those greedy capitalists who think they know better than us. The heroes of that book didn't go far enough early enough and that is why the capitalists won.

        See, not that hard. :(
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by WyoJim1963 4 years ago
    As a kid in the 50's, I went to a Catholic grade school. Of course my buddies and me would go to the library to cull the National Geographic to see if there were any naked folks, and of course the nuns had beat us to the draw and cut out any pictures that they considered "obscene."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Abaco 4 years ago
    Oh sure.

    Americans want to ban books, and do many other totalitarian activities. They're ready. I've been saying this for a couple years now but every time some report like this comes out everybody around me seems so shocked. I'm not shocked one bit. There's a quickening now. The people are ready for this, so of course the establishment is ready. The next few years will blow your mind... Note the banter lately about taking people away for their thoughts and beliefs? Oh yeah. Hold on to your hats (even the tinfoil ones).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by helmsman5 4 years ago
      I agree with your observation.. Note systems that purport to 'know better'. Few groups other than this one perceive the real danger of the state/media complex and the steady drive towards control and monolithic thought.. Thanks.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 4 years ago
    Ok, here is a thought to promote, it's one of the main tenants of my book and my philosophy.

    There is value in all things good, bad and dare I say, ugly; if only to recognize that which is not valuable.

    There is always something to learn, some puzzle piece to find or a clue to another.

    That's why no book, even if it's crap and full of lies or stupid ideas...there is something to learn.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by vido 4 years ago
    That comes together with the increase of the "liberal" population, who are actually marxists, although they don't even know about that.
    This is the result of decades of marxist brainwashing beginning at school. What do you think was the purpose of all those school system reforms ?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Turfprint 4 years ago
    Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful Education Act, also known as the FAIR Education Act (Senate Bill 48) and informally described by media outlets as the LGBT History Bill, is a California law which compels the inclusion of the political, economic, and social contributions of persons with disabilities and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people into educational textbooks and the social studies curricula in California public schools by amending the California Education Code.
    (BTW if you find time to teach the subject that would be considered a plus.)

    "Someone's been eating my porridge," growled the Papa bear.
    "Someone's been eating my porridge," said the Mama bear.
    "Someone's been eating my porridge and they ate it all up!" cried the Baby bear.

    Now children, I must point out the correct statement from the forest dwelling creatures should be more inclusive and socially just it could actually be said like this:
    "Someone's been eating my porridge," growled the Papa bear.
    "Someone's been eating my porridge," said the other Papa bear.
    "Someone's been eating my porridge and they ate it all up!" cried the Baby bear.
    OR
    "Someone's been eating my porridge," growled the Mama bear.
    "Someone's been eating my porridge," said the other Mama bear.
    "Someone's been eating my porridge and they ate it all up!" cried the Baby bear.

    Children we all know that it is perfectly natural that some of you have two mothers and some have two daddies. The way this works will be explained next year when you are in first grade.

    Some may not like this type of book. Just saying.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by VetteGuy 4 years ago
      "PARENT BEAR"!!!

      "Mama" or "Papa" is sexist, and cannot be tolerated. Better yet: "custodial adult" so as not to discriminate against adoptive of foster parents.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Turfprint 4 years ago
        Answering the "why" of young children about sexist issues requires each teacher to have a lawyer present during the children's questioning. And they do question, you can believe that. But as any modern teacher is aware and who can answer from Marathon to Waterloo,
        In order categorical and knows the kings of England, and can quote the fights historical;
        "Just ask the government what to do!"
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo