I was just looking over this site that has various banned book lists. The list for the top challenged/banned books for 2006 had explanations as to why. Quite often the reasons were because it dealt with homosexuality. I understand not wanting a 4-year old to read a picture book about it----it could confuse them. But, when it is novels for tweens and teens I think it is ridiculous. They are old enough to decide for themselves whether or not they want to read about it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. And, it is wrong, I feel, for a library or a school to not have a book because the main characters are homosexual. I don't really know where I am going with this....I am just frustrated that people are against books because they deal with homosexuality...
2006 list:
“And Tango Makes Three” by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell, for homosexuality, anti-family, and unsuited to age group;
“Gossip Girls” series by Cecily Von Ziegesar for homosexuality, sexual content, drugs, unsuited to age group, and offensive language;
“Alice” series by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor for sexual content and offensive language;
“The Earth, My Butt, and Other Big Round Things” by Carolyn Mackler for sexual content, anti-family, offensive language, and unsuited to age group;
“The Bluest Eye” by Toni Morrison for sexual content, offensive language, and unsuited to age group;
“Scary Stories” series by Alvin Schwartz for occult/Satanism, unsuited to age group, violence, and insensitivity;
“Athletic Shorts” by Chris Crutcher for homosexuality and offensive language;
“The Perks of Being a Wallflower” by Stephen Chbosky for homosexuality, sexually explicit, offensive language, and unsuited to age group;
“Beloved” by Toni Morrison for offensive language, sexual content, and unsuited to age group; and
“The Chocolate War” by Robert Cormier for sexual content, offensive language, and violence.
Site Link:
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bannedbooksweek.cfm
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Religion
I had chosen to read Forbidden Religion, because of its questioning nature. I too question the Christian religion, and in fact all organized religions. They seem to me to be more political than actually about faith.
Sure, the people on the bottom of the rung have true faith. But, the truth is that most organizers of religion are trying to get money and power.
One thing that the book pointed out a lot is that there are parts of even the Bible that the heads of the various branches of Christianity tend to ignore.
I apologize in advance for the rant that is about to come.
Christianity really angers me. A LOT.
So here is a list of things that I think should be contemplated by the people in modern society. I am not trying to be offensive. I just think that a lot of people do not even know what they believe in. I truly feel that it is a person's choice to believe in whatever religion they want [as long as it does not involve the suffering as any living creature] and I believe in a higher power. I honestly wish I could still have faith in the Christian religion, but I feel that I cannot.
Anyways, here are some interesting things that I have thought about:
-All Christians who are racially prejudiced cannot be true Christians. Jesus was born in the Middle East. So therefor he cannot be the Caucasian man that is the common image.
-All Christians who put down the Jewish religion cannot be true Christians. Jesus was Jewish. How could he have possibly been Christian?
-The Bible is not italicized or underlined. If we truly live in a society that separates church and state, why should the book of the Christian religion get special treatment over nonreligious text?
-How can a true feminist also be truly Christian? In the Bible it was an accepted practice to beat your wife. Women were subservient.
-The Bible is very contradictory of itself. Could it possibly be that it is filled with stories that are meant to be read for their moral content, and not taken word for word as truth?
-Incest is wrong...there are so many bad consequences to it. Yet....if the world was submerged in water and only Noah, his family, and 2 of every creature survived.....doesn't that mean that every creature is descendant of an incest relationship?
Sure, the people on the bottom of the rung have true faith. But, the truth is that most organizers of religion are trying to get money and power.
One thing that the book pointed out a lot is that there are parts of even the Bible that the heads of the various branches of Christianity tend to ignore.
I apologize in advance for the rant that is about to come.
Christianity really angers me. A LOT.
So here is a list of things that I think should be contemplated by the people in modern society. I am not trying to be offensive. I just think that a lot of people do not even know what they believe in. I truly feel that it is a person's choice to believe in whatever religion they want [as long as it does not involve the suffering as any living creature] and I believe in a higher power. I honestly wish I could still have faith in the Christian religion, but I feel that I cannot.
Anyways, here are some interesting things that I have thought about:
-All Christians who are racially prejudiced cannot be true Christians. Jesus was born in the Middle East. So therefor he cannot be the Caucasian man that is the common image.
-All Christians who put down the Jewish religion cannot be true Christians. Jesus was Jewish. How could he have possibly been Christian?
-The Bible is not italicized or underlined. If we truly live in a society that separates church and state, why should the book of the Christian religion get special treatment over nonreligious text?
-How can a true feminist also be truly Christian? In the Bible it was an accepted practice to beat your wife. Women were subservient.
-The Bible is very contradictory of itself. Could it possibly be that it is filled with stories that are meant to be read for their moral content, and not taken word for word as truth?
-Incest is wrong...there are so many bad consequences to it. Yet....if the world was submerged in water and only Noah, his family, and 2 of every creature survived.....doesn't that mean that every creature is descendant of an incest relationship?
Book Review
I read Forbidden Religion by Kenyon.
Here is an abbreviated version of my review:
It was overall a very interesting book on the Christian Religion. All of the essays were on aspects of the religion that are generally overlooked for political reasons. While it was fascinating, a lot of the claims made by the various authors had little factual backing. It sounded to me like a lot of them had their little pet theories and used the book as a way of attempting to pick up believers. There were a few claims that were very good and did have a lot of factual backing.
I recommend reading this book for entertainment, and using the crazy theories as a stepping stone to looking into the religion, because I feel that even the craziest might have a grain of truth within it. There is much in Christian history that has been rewritten or left out all together.
Here is an abbreviated version of my review:
It was overall a very interesting book on the Christian Religion. All of the essays were on aspects of the religion that are generally overlooked for political reasons. While it was fascinating, a lot of the claims made by the various authors had little factual backing. It sounded to me like a lot of them had their little pet theories and used the book as a way of attempting to pick up believers. There were a few claims that were very good and did have a lot of factual backing.
I recommend reading this book for entertainment, and using the crazy theories as a stepping stone to looking into the religion, because I feel that even the craziest might have a grain of truth within it. There is much in Christian history that has been rewritten or left out all together.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Animal Music?
In class the other day, Betsy asked if music made by animals is still considered music. It is organized sound. It is made to be pleasing to others of the species. In my opinion it is still considered music.
However, if music is something that is human made, this would not be possible.
If it is a social construction, it can be though; music made by animals is to get mates, a social behavior.
Perhaps certain creatures (humans included) have an innate sense of music??
However, if music is something that is human made, this would not be possible.
If it is a social construction, it can be though; music made by animals is to get mates, a social behavior.
Perhaps certain creatures (humans included) have an innate sense of music??
Saturday, April 26, 2008
My Opinion Keeps Changing
I went from 100% objective to 100% subjective. Now I am at 100% I have no idea.
WHAT IS MUSIC??? I really would like to know. I feel like I don't even know if it is based completely on sound.
In class we discussed deaf people and music. Sometimes they can feel the music. and sometimes it is in their heads, memories of the past when they could hear it Are these things still music? Or does it have to be sound waves actually picked up by an ear?
Also, one thing that I do think is necessary is for someone somewhere to find it to be aesthetically pleasing. There was debate about this in class. But, if no one found it appealing, no one would have ever said that it was music. Yes, we can not like something and say it is music, but for the most part we find music from the store the computer etc. In order for it to be deemed music there, it must have been appealing to at least one person.
WHAT IS MUSIC??? I really would like to know. I feel like I don't even know if it is based completely on sound.
In class we discussed deaf people and music. Sometimes they can feel the music. and sometimes it is in their heads, memories of the past when they could hear it Are these things still music? Or does it have to be sound waves actually picked up by an ear?
Also, one thing that I do think is necessary is for someone somewhere to find it to be aesthetically pleasing. There was debate about this in class. But, if no one found it appealing, no one would have ever said that it was music. Yes, we can not like something and say it is music, but for the most part we find music from the store the computer etc. In order for it to be deemed music there, it must have been appealing to at least one person.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Ok, so I read it...
I read the article. I still think that it is 100% subjective.
BUT
I like the definition: "As Organized Sound." That's what I feel that it really is. It is a way that sounds are organized to be pleasing to at least it's creator.
This brings up a question that I feel is very relevant....In Art and Philosophy, we say that art has to be human made. Music is a form of art. So by this logic, music has to be human made. But, what about birds? And other natural music? Are they not music because they are not made by humans?
BUT
I like the definition: "As Organized Sound." That's what I feel that it really is. It is a way that sounds are organized to be pleasing to at least it's creator.
This brings up a question that I feel is very relevant....In Art and Philosophy, we say that art has to be human made. Music is a form of art. So by this logic, music has to be human made. But, what about birds? And other natural music? Are they not music because they are not made by humans?
Monday, April 21, 2008
Music?
"My boyfriend is bang, the boom, the beat
He's beatin' down the door to get to me
Yeah music is the shock, the shake, the shit
The needle in the groove, the grind, the grit
My boyfriend is music"
-Skye Sweetnam
I have not yet read the article on music, but I figured that I would give some preliminary thoughts.
I feel that music is 100% objective. Every culture has different music, and withing a culture there are different genres. I know o many people who would say that rap is not music. I know just as many who say that opera is merely noise. There does not appear to be any set of standards making something music or not.
I included the song quote because I like the way that she defines it. "the bang, the boom the beat" etc. Also part of her interpretation is that music is something that makes her feel good. To other people music is close to godly. There are also some that think that music should be only about God. There are some who say that modern music is not music.
Am I making my point? There are a million ways to define music, and there are so many forms of music that have nothing to do with the rest. I think that it is merely a collection o sounds that are pleasing to an individual, and that it is completely subjective.
He's beatin' down the door to get to me
Yeah music is the shock, the shake, the shit
The needle in the groove, the grind, the grit
My boyfriend is music"
-Skye Sweetnam
I have not yet read the article on music, but I figured that I would give some preliminary thoughts.
I feel that music is 100% objective. Every culture has different music, and withing a culture there are different genres. I know o many people who would say that rap is not music. I know just as many who say that opera is merely noise. There does not appear to be any set of standards making something music or not.
I included the song quote because I like the way that she defines it. "the bang, the boom the beat" etc. Also part of her interpretation is that music is something that makes her feel good. To other people music is close to godly. There are also some that think that music should be only about God. There are some who say that modern music is not music.
Am I making my point? There are a million ways to define music, and there are so many forms of music that have nothing to do with the rest. I think that it is merely a collection o sounds that are pleasing to an individual, and that it is completely subjective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)