236

'Nontheistic' nonprofit calls for Bible ban in Leon schools, citing Moms for Liberty efforts (www.tallahassee.com)

submitted 1 year ago by YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

50 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Freedom from Religion Foundation, which describes itself as a nontheistic nonprofit, is giving Leon County School District an ultimatum: Ban the Bible or stop banning books altogether.

In an email sent to school board members on July 14, the Freedom from Religion Foundation piled onto a recent successful effort by the local chapter of the conservative group Moms for Liberty to pull five books found in Leon County high schools.

The next school board meeting will be 2 p.m. July 24 to discuss the first official book challenge hearing of "I am Billie Jean King" by Brad Meltzer.

"We are disturbed that the district has chosen to start removing books from school libraries based on content taken out of context at the request of extremist groups like Moms for Liberty," foundation Staff Attorney Christopher Line said in the published email to the district.

Freedom from Religion says the Bible should be banned based on the same reasoning Moms for Liberty presented in their request; "sexually explicit content."

"We write to request that the District either ban the bible based on the criterion of 'sexually explicit content' it has used to ban these books, or cease banning books and return the banned books to school shelves," Line wrote in the email.

top 48 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] TechyDad@lemmy.world 45 points 1 year ago

I'm pretty religious (Jewish) and am against book bans, but I support this. If Klanned Karenhood... I mean, Moms For Liberty, want books banned for sexual content, the Bible is prime for banning.

Here's one story in the so called "family friendly" Bible that's read to kids: After Lot escaped the destruction of Sodom and Gemorah, he and his daughters took refuge in a cave. The daughters thought that the entire world was destroyed and decided that they needed to repopulate the human race.

Unluckily, the only man that they knew was alive was their dad. "Luckily," the cave was filled with barrels of wine. So the oldest girl got Lot drunk and she slept with him. The next night, they got dear old dad drunk again so the younger daughter could sleep with him. Both daughters wound up giving birth to children by their father.

Nothing says "family friendly" to Moms For Liberty like rape and incest, I guess.

[+] LexiconDrexicon@lemm.ee -60 points 1 year ago

[removed by mod]

[-] TurtleJoe@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

Lol. OP never said anything about burning bibles.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

if I burned a Torah in front of a synagogue

Why do I get the impression that you would?

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

So do it. I bet we find that no one cares.

[-] omgarm@feddit.nl 6 points 1 year ago

I'd argue it's less of an issue to burn a religious text that is plenty replicated and easily accessible online than a small print fiction story.

And in the end it's just paper. People can think of new stories to tell.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

And in the end it’s just paper.

In the end, Mein Kampf is just paper too. And yet it inspired atrocities. I think you're being disingenuous. A book can have lasting power and burning a book can also have lasting power in terms of messages and symbolism.

Personally, my issue is not that someone is burning a Koran or a Torah or whatever, it's that they're burning a book. Even symbolically, that's saying the book shouldn't be read. That it's available online misses the point of the message.

[-] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Burning a religious text could send a hateful message, but it depends on the context. If the text or symbol has been used to justify hate, and the person burning the object expresses mainly a desire to be rid of the tyranny the object represents, then it's ultimately an act defined more by liberation than oppression. If the object is being burned by someone who advocates oppression and has not experienced any tyranny from what the object represents, the act is more defined by hate. This is a hard thing to parse, and even harder to legislate, because it takes into account the history and changing power dynamics between social groups.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I'm not even talking about sending a hateful message about religion, I'm talking about sending the message that some information deserves to be destroyed. I just can't agree there. Even about the most hateful text imaginable. It still needs to exist if just to show an example of what to avoid.

[-] Devious_Thoughts@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 1 year ago

I would love the irony if the Bible became the most banned book in America

[-] theywilleatthestars@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

Fuck around and find out

[-] BlazeMaster3000@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Precocious exposure to biblical teachings, particularly when imparted by individuals with inadequate theological proficiency, may be unsuitable for children. The Bible's complex contextual nuances necessitate a cognitive maturity typically exceeding a child's developmental capacity. Such premature exposure may foster distorted understandings or render the child susceptible to manipulative interpretations advanced by ill-intentioned individuals.

On a side note, I am a Christian and I think VeggieTales is the most Satanic bullshit I've ever seen.

[+] LexiconDexicon@lemmy.world -83 points 1 year ago

Except that's against the Constitution of the United States of America and a violation of peoples basic human rights. People have every right to practice their religious beliefs here, and I say that as a liberal progressive. Being offensive is not an excuse to destroy peoples fundamental rights, and it's a deadly slope to go down.

[-] Coach@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago

People most certainly have a right to practice whatever religion they want. However, as a "liberal progressive" you might want to brush up on the establishment clause of the first amendment. Especially if this is a public school.

[-] BaldProphet@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

Having the Bible in a public school doesn't violate the establishment clause. Not allowing any other religious text would, however.

[-] admiralteal@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But pretty much all of these book bans working their way through schools absolutely DO infringe freedom of expression. As is the goal.

I see no problem with using these badly-written bans to hoist these people by their own petards until they stop spreading their evil into schools in the name of a religion. Because the Bible contains all the necessary themes to get it "legitimately" banned under any of these laws, proving clearly how overly broad and arbitrary the laws are.

[-] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago

They don't have the right to force their religion onto others, which is what the case is about.

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago

But it’s okay to ban books about Black people? Liberal progressive my ass

[+] LexiconDrexicon@lemm.ee -9 points 1 year ago

No, it's not okay to ban books about Black People and I never said it was at any point in the post I made.

Also like 80% of Black Americans are Christian you know

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/02/07/5-facts-about-the-religious-lives-of-african-americans/

"Religion, particularly Christianity, has played an outsize role in African American history. While most Africans brought to the New World to be slaves were not Christians when they arrived, many of them and their descendants embraced Christianity, finding comfort in the Biblical message of spiritual equality and deliverance. In post-Civil War America, a burgeoning black church played a key role strengthening African American communities and in providing key support to the civil rights movement."

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

What does Black people being religious have to do with this? Did you read the original post?

[-] TheHighRoad@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

This is the worst take on this topic I have ever seen.

[+] LexiconDrexicon@lemm.ee -7 points 1 year ago

Glad to see you contribute nothing of value to the discussion except your reddit shitpost

[-] TheHighRoad@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Glad your fascist views in sheep's clothing are thoroughly hated like they should be.

[-] LexiconDrexicon@lemm.ee -5 points 1 year ago

I'm the fascist because I don't want you to attack peoples religious beliefs? Excuse me but what?

[-] TheHighRoad@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

You came in a bit hot for civil discourse, don't you think? I don't think you are a fascist, but I am no longer willing to tolerate intolerance. These people have every right to practice their religion, but they do not have the right to weild it as a weapon of persecution behind the shield of the law.

[-] LexiconDrexicon@lemm.ee -3 points 1 year ago

I came in with my belief that no book should ever be banned in America and at no point did anyone commenting on my posts even read what I wrote. When you make a 2 paragraph post in honesty and instead all you get in return is 12 year olds with childish insults it's just sad and demeaning.

This is precisely why I left reddit in the first place, there was no discussion happening there, just people karma farming and circlejerks, no real discussions, just "yes men" all agreeing with each other and that's not politics, that's not "civil discourse" and it's not democratic in any way. Democracy is not a one-way street, and even Biden said that he would be working with Republicans a few months ago. Democracy can not exist in a one party system.

[-] TheHighRoad@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I sympathize with your sentiment, and I wish they would live and let live... but they won't. My reason for saying it's a bad take is that they give zero f's about your good faith principles; if we want a brighter future, rolling over and legitimizing these fools is not the way to go about it.

[-] evatronic@lemm.ee 22 points 1 year ago

Removing books from school libraries is absolutely constitutional when that removal is done based on the content or (lack of) educational value. The courts have ruled on this repeatedly.

Everyone has a right to practice their religion, and the government cannot abridge that. However, the government does not need to facilitate that. If kids want to read a filthy book like the Christian Bible, they can bring their own copy from home and read it when it's not disruptive to the educational process.

[-] admiralteal@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The Freedom from Religion Foundation, which describes itself as a nontheistic nonprofit, is giving Leon County School District an ultimatum: Ban the Bible or stop banning books altogether.

You don't even have to click the link and read the article to see that their goal is not to ban the book, but to end book bans.

These badly-written bans being used to further Christian conservative religious and political agendas in public schools by banning legitimate topics are the problem. Get rid of the bad laws and fix the problem. Keep them around and they'll be used against you.

[-] TechyDad@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

My view is that no book bans would be better. However, iif they are insisting that books should be banned for "sexual content" (even though most times the sexual content is minimal if it's even there), then the Bible should absolutely be banned. If there's one standard for the Bible and another one for LGBTQ books, then it's not a just rule.

[-] DigitalNirvana@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It’s a deadly slope and groups like Moms for Liberty have already taken us down it. This case has two possible outcomes: 1, Ban the Bible, or 2. Return the previously, unjustly banned books. In chess this called a Knight’s Fork, and the group who posed it will win either way.

[-] kitsuneofinari@yiffit.net 10 points 1 year ago

This is not a violation of their constitutional rights though... This is just a ban on copies of certain books from being in the school library. They want the bible included in that.

This is not saying a student who owns their own private copy of say, the bible, cannot bring their own copy to school and read it. Is only banning the library from carrying a copy.

No one's constitutional rights are being violated.

And it's been almost 20 years since I was in a US public school, but as I understood it back then, the public schools could not carry copies of the bible even if they wanted too.

[-] SeaJ@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

It can simply be allowed in libraries that have readers that the content is more appropriate for like universities. It is sexually inappropriate for anyone younger.

[-] BakedGoods@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

That's the most uneducated thing I've ever read.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2023

236 points (98.4% liked)

politics

19136 readers

3681 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News