![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
![]() |
#31 | ||||
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bree
Posts: 390
![]() |
![]() Quote:
While some forms of censorship are necessary, I do not support, nor do I think there is any good argument, for banning or book burning. The issue is how do you address those who argue for banning or undue censorship. In regard to a specific area, religion, we lack a language to do so. We can not in this day and age discuss religious principles without recourse to “rights language” which is inadequate in regards to issues that suggest absolute truth. I’m not going to attempt to explain this, but I do recommend the brilliant work of sociologist, Robert Bellah, who collected a group of fellow scholars and put together two excellent books, Habits of the Heart, and The Good Society, both of which are absolutely essential reads about modern American (and for that matter, western European) sociology and cultural anthropology. Quote:
In the end, imposing a regulation, whether it be based on the difference between imposing and exposing or anything else, is inadequate. First, any regulation can be interpreted in as many ways as there are people who want to challenge it or bend it to their will. Second, such a regulation does not address the reasons why someone would be so intolerant of something that they would want to ban it. The only adequate solution is to argue against the primary principles upon which their position rests. I’ve already touched on why this is such a stumbling block for us when the principles are religious ones. Quote:
If they are not persuaded by argument, that’s no excuse to stop arguing. The only bad debate is the one that comes to an end. What are the principles that would determine “clear harm”? There’s a good reason why I ask this question. Within certain circumstances some things may cause harm, but given other circumstances they would not. Likewise, some things that in and of themselves do not cause harm, may be clearly harmful to the ends intended. For example, reading Tolkien during civics class is harmful to the ends intended, but there is no harm in reading Tolkien in and of itself. Does harm only apply to the physical well being of individuals? My racist neighbor, for example, doesn’t beat people up over his racist beliefs, but on a different level, doesn’t his speech and his display of a Nazi flag harm the community? For some people, fantasy literature is clearly harmful, whether it be religious reasons or not. Don’t misunderstand me; I’m not saying your definition of tolerance is wrong. However, it is open to a vast array of interpretation. For this reason arguing that a form of censorship is wrong because it is intolerant doesn’t do the job. Quote:
[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Ferny ]
__________________
I prefer Gillaume d’Férny, connoisseur of fine fruit. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |