Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!husc6!panda!genrad!mit-eddie!mit-trillian!speter
From: speter@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Peter Osgood)
Newsgroups: net.religion,talk.religion
Subject: Re: Banning books, religion etc...
Message-ID: <1093@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 5-Sep-86 14:27:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-tril.1093
Posted: Fri Sep  5 14:27:12 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Sep-86 05:31:11 EDT
References: <1637@ames.UUCP> <180@BMS-AT.UUCP> <3554@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU> <136@heurikon.UUCP>
Reply-To: speter@athena.mit.edu (Peter Osgood)
Distribution: net
Organization: MIT Project Athena
Lines: 43
Xref: linus net.religion:10737 talk.religion:63

Sender:

In article <136@heurikon.UUCP> mikem@heurikon.UUCP (mikem) writes:
>In a discussion on censorship I ran accross the following statement
>by za56@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU (Brian McNeill):
>
>The first ammendment does not say that you have the right to read whatever
>you want.
>                                    Michael W. Mayer

Why do you think the Scopes trial was held then??  It was because a
certain school district took great exception to a public school teacher
teaching Darwin and his theories on evolution.  Since Darwin and the
Bible don't match up the religous leaders, and many others of the day,
were certain that it was ruinous to teach children such things.  The
idea was to ban the book, ban the thought.  Furthermore, the Supreme
Court's rulings on pornography in the late 60's, early 70's furthered
the idea the we do indeed have the right to read what we wish.  There
are certain exceptions, but they are very few in number.

So, what does all this mean?  Certain religous leaders would love to
see many types of books banned: ie. psychology, heredity, anthropology,
"Lady Chatterly's Lover," "Splendor in the Grass," "Tom Jones,"
the Koran, etc. etc.  This is nothing more censorship.  Marxist 
societies thrive on censorship, but to maintain a free society which
supports practicing many diverse religons openly, we cannot allow more
than very minimal censorship (child pornography, slander).

If we allow any one religous group to dictate what is right and what is
wrong then we are in grave danger of forfeiting those very freedoms which
the founders of this country worked so very hard to achieve.

Jesus lead by example.  He always had the power to change government but
He said that we should give to Ceasar those things which are Ceasar's.  He
never forced His beliefs on anyone, He wanted people to follow Him because
they wanted to not because they were forced to.

The moral of all this is, if you want to get things out of print that
you believe are harmful then you must speak out against them, show how
you are unequivocavely correct, convince people that they do not want 
to read such things.  If you are right and convincing, you will win, no
one will buy the book and it will go out of print.  Censorship only
makes people want the "forbidden fruit" that much more.

				---peter osgood---