Christianity and censorship

Originally posted by Nyxie
Try to take at least one issue seriously for a minute kirksey, it just might confuse everyone long enough for you to get an actual point in.

I love ya brother kirksey but it's hard to maintain that serious face when you show up.

Nyxie

Seriously, I am captivated by your lesson, and I mean that. OK, I"ll be quiet now. Continue, Professa Nyxie.

Originally posted by Nyxie
No reason at all to apoligize. I started the thread to create discussion. It is working. Censorship itself does partly lie in our societies' inability to accept open sexuality in a public way.

Aother idea of censorship are opposing or "sacriligious" thoughts and ideas.

And a third being the issue of vulgarity and shock value.

Nyxie

Censorship of ideas may derive from a desire for a kind of perverse utopianism: If we can just get rid of all of "them," and eradicate their ideas, then the world will be just fine 'cause there's just "us" (though how can I ever be really sure about you?).

Originally posted by vistesd
Censorship of ideas may derive from a desire for a kind of perverse utopianism: If we can just get rid of all of "them," and eradicate their ideas, then the world will be just fine 'cause there's just "us" (though how can I ever be really sure about you?).

The thing is that you cannot. For without me, or us, with you, you are doomed to a lonely life.

Nyxie

Originally posted by Nyxie
The thing is that you cannot. For without me, or us, with you, you are doomed to a lonely life.

Nyxie

Absolutely. In the end, such thinking is nihilistic.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Why does sexual diversity cause such a storm. do you think?

I think it may ultimately go to what Elisabeth Schussler-Fiorenza called the “kyriarchy.” Think of it: human eros—in all its dimensions, including sexuality—is perhaps the deepest, most profound and powerful, personal and intense experience and expression of ourselves—body, mind a ...[text shortened]... ter all, the woman always knows that the baby is hers; only the man might have doubts.
[/b]

So the ideas are basically these:

(1) Sexuality offers many people the greatest opportunities for individual self-expression and fulfilment;

(2) However, such individual self-expression and fulfilment is threatening to those in power;

(3) Therefore, those in power encourage and disseminate taboos to limit such individual self-expression and fulfilment.

This is a key reason for erotophobia.


In addition,

(1) Men have a harder time keeping track of paternity than women do of maternity;

(2) Hence, men want to keep female sexuality under control by subjugating women generally.

This is a key reason for patriarchy.

Are these explanations sufficient?

Originally posted by Nyxie
I see this thread had inspired a couple of sideline debates in itself. I will try to answer these later.

Let's start with the dr who had the sex change and is seeing another woman, whom also used to be a man. I believe that sexual reassig ...[text shortened]... t ask me and I'll try to answer better.

Nyxie
the Valkyrja

In this connection, one can usefully distinguish between

(1) biological sex,
(2) sexual identity,
(3) sex-typed behaviour
(4) sexual orientiation.

Most of the time, I observe, matters will work out such that (1), (2), and (3) happen to sexually contrast with (4).

For example, a biological man will often consider himself a man and follow football, but he will fancy women; and a biological woman will often consider herself a woman and carry a handbag, but will fancy men.

Let's call this the "+1 +1 +1 -1" (or -1 -1 -1 +1), or canonical, sexual style.

However, some of the time this +1 +1 +1 -1 style breaks down in interesting ways, though aggregrate trends remain. For example, though not all gay men are girly, there are more girly gay men than girly straight men, and though not all lesbians are butch, there are most butch lesbians than butch female straights.

Particularly interesting are cases of, say, male cross-dressers, who preserve a male gender identity while enjoying female sex-typed behaviours, but who still fancy women. This would be an example of 1 1 -1 -1 style.

There are 16 ways that a person could be in this scheme. However, not all possibilities are equally represented. Question: Are there some possibilities that are *never* represented?

Matters are still more complex, of course. For example, one could vary between 1 and -1 on each dimension (e.g., an intersex, flexibly identified, and behaviorally androgenous bisexual would score 0, 0, 0, 0). One may also show some variability across time and situation on each dimension (at work I am macho, but I let my wife tie me up at night). Moreover, some people may have complex sexual preferences (gays who like straight men), or none at all (libido absent).

In case you're interested, I am, on average, something like 1, 1, .2, -.957.

I'm thinking of devising a questionnaire on this subject, and putting it on the web. If and when I do, I'll let you know.

Originally posted by Nemesio
I would be interested in seeing the Greek; translations can
lose a lot without having a transliteration nearby.

Nemesio

This poem....I only have as is...there are some of her writings found at:


http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/sappho/index.htm

gil

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
So the ideas are basically these:

(1) Sexuality offers many people the greatest opportunities for individual self-expression and fulfilment;

(2) However, such individual self-expression and fulfilment is threatening to those in power;

(3) Therefore, those in power encourage and disseminate taboos to limit such individual self-expression and ful ...[text shortened]... g women generally.

This is a key reason for patriarchy.

Are these explanations sufficient?

So the ideas are basically these:

(1) Sexuality offers many people the greatest opportunities for individual self-expression and fulfillment;

One of the greatest opportunities. Anyway. What I said was “perhaps the deepest…” etc.

(2) However, such individual self-expression and fulfillment is threatening to those in power;

Sometimes.

(3) Therefore, those in power encourage and disseminate taboos to limit such individual self-expression and fulfillment.

I suggested that was one reason; it was not the only reason I listed (nor do I think my list is exhaustive).

This is a key reason for erotophobia.

One of them anyway.


In addition,

(1) Men have a harder time keeping track of paternity than women do of maternity;

(2) Hence, men want to keep female sexuality under control by subjugating women generally.

This is a key reason for patriarchy.

I’m not sure it’s a key reason for patriarchy, unless you’re simply using patriarchy to label that process. If a society is patrilineal, there is an incentive to control women’s sexual behavior in order to be sure of those hereditary lines. In matrilineal societies, it is not a problem. A pure patriarchal society is one in which men only define the rules—i.e., it is rule (archy) by the father (pater). There have also been matriarchal societies and shared-power societies.

Are these explanations sufficient?

By themselves, in all cases? No. I didn’t think that I suggested they were

Originally posted by gentlegil
This poem....I only have as is...there are some of her writings found at:


http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/sappho/index.htm

gil

My earlier post for Nemesio contains the original greek, and the english translations.


Nyxie

To understand censorship, or it's motives we must understand why people find stuff offensive. Most of it does'nt make a lot of sense to me. Many of the books I have read in my life have at one time or another been called out for banning. Take a look at this website :

http://title.forbiddenlibrary.com/

Some interesting books on the list :

The Bible. William Tyndale, who partially completed translating the Bible into English, was captured, strangled, and burned at the stake (1536) by opponents of the movement to translate the bible into the vernacular. Beginning around 1830, "family friendly" bibles, including Noah Webster's version (1833) began to appear which had excised passages considered to be indelicate.

I must add that the bible contains by far more violence and sexual acts then just about any book I can think of at this time. I mean if you're going to ban a book....

1984 . George Orwell. Harcourt. Challenged in the Jackson County, Fla. (1981) because the novel is "pro-communist and contained explicit sexual matter." Big Brother doesn't want people reading such things.

Fahrenheit 451. Ray Bradbury. Ballentine. Ironically, students at the Venado Middle School in Irvine, Calif. received copies of the book with scores of words--mostly "hells" and "damns"--blacked out. The novel is about book burning and censorship. Thankfully, after receiving complaints from parents and being contacted by reporters, school officials said the censored copies would no longer be used.

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings. Maya Angelou. Bantam. This book gets challenged quite often, due to the poet's descriptions of being raped as a young girl.

Yes the same Maya Angelou who read that wonderful, but very long poem at Clinton's innauguration. And of course who can forget this great verse from her poem "I rise"

Does my sexiness upset you?
Does it come as a surprise
That I dance like I've got diamonds
At the meeting of my thighs?



The Martian Chronicles. Ray Bradbury. Bantam. Challenged at the Haines City, Fla. High School (1982) for profanity and the use of God's name in vain. Challenged at the Newton-Conover, N.C. High School (1987) as supplemental reading due to profanity. Challenged at the Gatlinburg-Pittman, Tenn. High School (1993) due to profanity.

I'd like to add that the Gatlinburg-pittman highschool is about 30 miles from my house. It's a great area I live in. Watching the miniseries on tv as a child inspired my love for ray bradbury, and led me on a quest to enrich my knowledge of science fiction. Which gave me some interst of science fact. My science book in the 7th grade was written by none other then Isaac Asimov himself, I studied it at night and when I finished my homework I read the foundation series, and then the caves of steel.

The Satanic Verses. Salman Rushdie. Viking. Banned in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Somalia, Sudan, Malaysia, Qatar, Indonesia, South Africa, and India due to its criticism of Islam. Burned in West Yorkshire, England (1989) and temporarily withdrawn from two bookstores on the advice of police. Five people died in riots against the book in Pakistan. Another man died a day later in Kashmir. Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa, or religious edict, stating, "I inform the proud Muslim people of the world that the author of the Satanic Verses, which is against Islam, the prophet, and the Koran, and all those involved in its publication who were aware of its content, have been sentenced to death." Challenged at the Wichita, Kans. Public Library (1989) because it is "blasphemous to the prophet Mohammed."

The Talmud. Soncino Pr. Burned in Cairo, Egypt (1190); Paris, France (1244); and Salamanca, Spain (1490). The Catholic Church in the Middle Ages tried to suppress this work. Pope Gregory IX ordered it burned (1239); Pope Innocent IV ordered King Louis IX of france to burn all copies (1248 and 1254); Pope Benedict XIII ordered the bishops of the Italian dioceses to confiscate all copies (1415); Pope Julius III ordered that Christians reading the Talmud be excommunicated; Pope Clement VIII forbade both "Christians and Jews from owning, reading, buying or circulating Talmudic or Cabbalistic books or other godless writing." (1592)

Where the Sidewalk Ends. Shel Silverstein. Harper. Challenged at the West Allis-West Milwaukee, Wis. school libraries (1986) because the book "suggests drug use, the occult, suicide, death, violence, disrespect for truth, disrespect for legitimate authority, rebellion against parents." Challenged at the Central Columbia School District in Bloomsburg, Pa. (1993) because a poem titled "Dreadful" talks about how "someone ate the baby." On the other hand, this book does present the negative consequences of not taking the garbage out.

I'd like to add here that this is one of the very first books I ever read on poetry as a young child. I myself am a published poet, I owe some of my muse to shel siverstein, I even have the tape where he sings a lot of these poems.

Where's Waldo? Martin Handford. Little. Challenged at the Public Libraries of Saginaw, Mich. (1989), Removed from the Springs Public School library in East Hampton, N.Y. (1993) because there is a tiny drawing of a woman lying on the beach wearing a bikini bottom but no top. Yes, but did they find Waldo?

A Wrinkle In Time. Madeleine L'Engle. Dell. Challenged at the Polk City, Fla. Elementary School (1985) by a parent who believed that the story promotes witchcraft, crystal balls, and demons. Challenged in the Anniston Ala. schools (1990). The complainant objected to the book's listing the name of Jesus Christ together with the names of great artists, philosophers, scientists, and religious leaders when referring to those who defend earth against evil. Got it. Let's cross Jesus off that list, shall we?

Zen Buddhism: Selected Writings. D.T. Suzuki. Doubleday. Challenged at the Plymouth-Canton school system in Canton, Mich. (1987) because "this book details the teachings of the religion of Buddhism in such a way that the reader could very likely embrace its teachings and choose this as his religion." The last thing we need are a bunch of peaceful Buddhists running around. The horror.

There are so many others that people are always calling to be banned, but I can never understand why they fear an opposing viewpoint so much. This quote is the closest to explaining it I guess :

"You see these dictators on their pedestals, surrounded by the bayonets of their soldiers and the truncheons of their police. Yet in their hearts there is unspoken - unspeakable! - fear. They are afraid of words and thoughts! Words spoken abroad, thoughts stirring at home, all the more powerful because they are forbidden. These terrify them. A little mouse - a little tiny mouse! -of thought appears in the room, and even the mightiest potentates are thrown into panic."
-- Winston Churchill