[Bill Ferny]

It is also accepted that schools may have a basis in organised religion, which would then influence the curriculum, and I would imagine that single-faith schools of all the world religions will have a fairly long list of books deemed 'undesirable' in the context of their faith.

This may be the case in some parochial schools, but is not, however, my experience from attending, and then latter teaching in both Catholic parochial schools and public schools. I found, not so much as a student, but as an educator that public schools were much more concerned about “objectionable material.” True that this “objectionable material” never took the form of specific books, but rather certain themes that could be or could not be presented, and if presented, presented in a certain manner. As a HS history teacher in a public school setting (only for about 3 months until I decided in utter disgust to swear off teaching altogether), I found that grossly important subjects such as the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement had been reduced to set dogma far above any possibility for debate or further investigation.

I suppose the slightly depressing thing is that banning a book because of religious reasons is, in the end, unarguable. The primacy of faith in this context overrules what we might call rational debate or liberal tenets, perhaps understandably so in the minds of certain true believers. These are vulnerable souls we are talking about, after all.

Frustration noted! However, you are much too charitable. Those whose belief systems can not be challenged, have remarkably fragile belief systems. The most interesting, and admirable, aspect of Catholic dogma is that it arose not as set law, but in response to challenges posed against commonly held Christian beliefs. Over the centuries dogma was formulated and defined because of serious theological debate. To ban a book without consideration of its practical and theoretical merits and faults is folly. True, something can be deemed trivial in light of already formulated doctrine, but this is only because the tenets of that work have already been debated long before. From a Catholic perspective (the only perspective I’m at liberty to discuss from experience) a book can be judged according to its value based on Christian doctrine, but such judgments can not be taken lightly or ignorantly. Such judgments are unfair, to both the work in question and said Christian doctrines, if reasonable arguments do not support them. To ban a book, opinion, movie or song outright based on religious beliefs without debate or without the foundation of former debates, seems to me at least, to reflect a belief system that can not stand up to criticism, or believers who can not for lack of intelligence or firm premises formulate arguments in defense of their position. I have seen over and over again that Catholic theologians and educators stand or fall on this basic principle (namely, those who pontificate direct quotes from Scripture or council fathers).

In the end, the stronger religious faith would argue for censorship based on debate or the fruits of former debate, and then only for censorship, NOT banning. As I’ve stated before, there is a real difference between censorship and banning. For example, Willie says above: “Now, I've only had experiences of banning in grammer school and not in highschool.” This is not banning, but censorship. Some materials can be deemed inappropriate for some people according to age. Just because you weren’t given access to certain materials when you were 12 doesn’t mean that those materials have been banned. Educators should have the ability to distinguish between material that is productive and counter-productive to basic indoctrination and censor that which is counter. In education, the educator must always weigh the free exchange of ideas with the ability of the student to freely exchange. You can’t discuss trigonometry, if you don’t know at least the basics of geometry and algebra. Just because your principle won’t allow you take trig before algebra, doesn’t mean your principle is banning trig! An educator may deem Tolkien inappropriate reading for a third grader. That’s simply censorship, not banning.

Squatter (showing once again that he’s more than just a roguish bandit who picks on dwarves) hits the nail on the head:

The only amusing aspect of the whole sorry tale is that by the standards quoted above, the Bible ought to be a prime candidate for restriction: it contains incest, fratricide, apocalyptic prophecies of doom, graphic violence, betrayal and exhortions to sell disobedient children into slavery. It's been linked to violence, discord and oppression, and may well have prompted the burning of a major European city. I'm not suggesting that the Bible ought to be banned, merely pointing out the rather obvious double-standard at work in the minds of many moralists.

The printing press has done more violence to Christianity than all the medieval popes, Queen Isabelle, and the crusades combined! After meeting so many “Christians” during the course of my short life, it is my firm belief that there are some people who should never have picked up the Bible in the first place. It is indeed the most dangerous book out there, and should only be read in a studious manner, within the context of a believing community. And before you start hurling apples at me, know that it is the Bible, itself, that says this.

However, Squatter, I have to disagree with you on this point: “In the end what does or does not constitute a harmful idea varies between individuals.” This is true, if we live a subjective and relativistic world. There are ideas that are harmful, trivial, and stupid, just as there are ideas that are good, noble, and astute. The problem is, is that we have to do some considerable labor in order to sort it all out. It requires a lot of reasoned debate, and to be quite frank, the attitude that it “varies between individuals” demonstrates sloth, not open mindedness.