Advanced Search

Gay Penguin Tale Tops List of 'Challenged' Books

By
Hillel Italie
Associated Press Writer
Tue, May. 06 2008 05:46 PM ET
[-]Text[+]
E-mail Print RSS More on Topic AddThis Button

NEW YORK - A children's story about a family of penguins with two fathers once again tops the list of library books the public objects to the most.

"And Tango Makes Three," released in 2005 and co-written by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell, was the most "challenged" book in public schools and libraries for the second straight year, according to the American Library Association.

"The complaints are that young children will believe that homosexuality is a lifestyle that is acceptable. The people complaining, of course, don't agree with that," Judith Krug, director of the ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom, told The Associated Press on Tuesday.

The ALA defines a "challenge" as a "formal, written complaint filed with a library or school requesting that materials be removed because of content or appropriateness."

Other books on the ALA's top 10 list include Maya Angelou's memoir "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings," in which the author writes of being raped as a young girl; Mark Twain's "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," long attacked for alleged racism; and Philip Pullman's "The Golden Compass," an anti-religious work in which a former nun says: "The Christian religion is a very powerful and convincing mistake."

Pullman's novel, released in 1996, received new attention last year because of the film version starring Nicole Kidman.

Overall, the number of reported library challenges dropped from 546 in 2006 to 420 last year, well below the mid-1990s, when complaints topped 750. For every challenge listed, about four to five go unreported, the library association estimates.

"The atmosphere is a little better than it used to be," Krug says. "I think some of the pressure has been taken off of books by the Internet, because so much is happening on the Internet."

According to the ALA, at least 65 challenges last year led to a book being pulled.

In Louisville, Ky., a high school principal told 150 English students to drop "Beloved," Toni Morrison's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel about an ex-slave who has murdered her baby daughter. At least two parents had complained that "Beloved" includes depictions of violence, racism and sex.

In Burlingame, Calif., Mark Mathabane's "Kaffir Boy," a memoir about growing up poor and black in apartheid-era South Africa, was banned from an intermediate school after a parent complained about a two-paragraph scene in which men pay boys for sex.

Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

BACK TO TOP Print E-mail More on Topic AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Comments

Most recent comments
ShuckCreations
  • Mon May 12, 2008 10:49 am
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
Bmore, we're not tearing apart your ideas. We are presenting clear arguements of why they aren't either completely thought out, incomplete and/or biased. When you present an arguement you better be prepared for the other side as well.

As far as your relationship with Christ, it is very true that we need not condemn you for that. Only God knows your true judgement. However, from scripture what understand that God does not like homosexuality and so we are trying to help you reach eternal salvation. If you get in that's awesome, but if not that deeply sadens me because we, through our love for you, tried to help you recieve the greatest gift of all. It's not our fault if you choose to disregard it, afterall it is your choice.

1 Corinthians 3:1-15
But on the judgment day, fire will reveal what kind of work each builder has done. The fire will show if a person’s work has any value. If the work survives, that builder will receive a reward. But if the work is burned up, the builder will suffer great loss. The builder will be saved, but like someone barely escaping through a wall of flames.

Paul shows us here that anyone who is saved can get into heaven. However, you must ask yourself if you are truely saved and if you are the one receiving the reward or the one barely getting through. Personally I would rather do what God wants, as is written in His word, than what I choose to do or by what others interpret is right.

1 Corinthains 1:19
As the Scriptures say, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and discard the intelligence of the intelligent.”
BmoreTeacher
  • Mon May 12, 2008 9:36 am
  • : 0
  • : 2
  • Flag
Clearly this won't work. I posted my ideas, yet people are hell-bent on tearing them apart. I have given well formed ideas, yet people are refusing to see that. If you have a problem with what the APA said, take it up with them. If you have a problem with the Catholic Church, take it up with them. I have a relationship with Christ that I will admit is unique, and it is my own, not to be condemned by anyone else.
jar1961
  • Mon May 12, 2008 8:59 am
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
FOR SHUCKS: I posted on this earlier. Actually what gays consider unsuiccessful conversion is by all acounts successful It depends on whos defining the term. Exodus recently came under a 4 year study. They follwed 100 participants. here is what they found... 24-30% of those they monitored successfully transitioned into the heterosexual lifestyle... Now granted that is 1 in 4 to 1 in 3... but if I had cancer and the odds of treatment were the same..Id jump at it...

MIlitant gays will label any success rate as a failure if it doesnt encompass a massive success rate of 80, 90 or 100%

Given that the gay community says that they are "born" gay..then what explains a success rate of 24-30%.. ?.. PS both the APA and genome program both state it is more environmental and cognitive.. the genome program says unequivocally that being gay is not genetic...
ShuckCreations
  • Mon May 12, 2008 8:31 am
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
BmoreTeacher said:
"I find it particularly interesting what they say about homosexuality not being a choice and the lack of evidence for conversion therapy."

Okay but what are the conversion rates of any kind of addict. Drug users go into rehab time and time again. Alcoholics are constantly quiting and then going back. Porn addictions are extremely hard to rid oneself from. Even smokers have a hard enough time quiting their habit.

So please explain to me why you would think that having made up one's mind about their orientation would be any easier to stop? Those that are addicted have a hard time quitting regardless! I can't remember the scripture off-hand, if someone else does please post it, but the bible tells that anything put before God is a sin. In other words, anything that you crave more than Him is a sin; anything that you would put first before God is a sin. Addiction is one of those things, you have to have it. Instead we should replace that with having to have God and after a while the addiction will leave us because our focus is on something greater.

The reason why most of these conversion therapy schools don't work is because the person there is more interested in satisfying his or her own needs than filling that gap with God. Once that person finally realizes that and focuses on Him he or she can finally repent their sin.

So I ask again, what are the conversion rates for homosexuality compared to those of alcoholism, porn addiction, smoking, and drug use? I bet you'll see a close resemblance!
jar1961
  • Sun May 11, 2008 10:04 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
NARTH reported on March 8, 2007:

Francis S. Collins, one of the world's leading scientists who works at the cutting edge of DNA research, concluded that "there is an inescapable component of heritability to many human behavioral traits." However, he adds, "for virtually none of them, is heredity ever close to predictive."

In reviewing the heritability (i.e., influence of genetic factors) on personality traits, Dr. Collins referenced the research of Bochard and McGue for the estimated percentage of these traits that can be ascribed to heredity.

The heritability estimates for personality traits were varied: General Cognitive Ability (50%), Extroversion (54%), Agreeableness (42%), Conscientiousness (49%), Neuroticism (48%), Openness (57%), Aggression (38%) and Traditionalism (54%).

with identical twins, that heritability is not to be confused as inevitability.
As Dr. Collins would agree, environment can influence gene expression, and free will determines the response to whatever predispositions might be present.
jar1961
  • Sun May 11, 2008 10:00 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation;
* Theories are not facts


most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of
* Science doesnt rely on consensus.. Consensus is the opposite of scientific fact

a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive
* Environmental and Cognitive are the 2 primary suspected causes.
*Cognitive means the ability to be aware and choose

and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality.
* Disavowed by the Genome 2007 Study
* Homosexuality is not hardwired," concludes head of the Human Genome Project...


In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation
* They don't know

and the reasons may be different for different people.
* They really dont know

Finally in all this, the report from the APA makes the statement that given everything they dont know, but suspect its both environmental and cogntivie that orientation is not a choice...

It is a ludicrous and arrogant statment given what they think the causes of.

FInally..I have said exactly what the APA said.. it is determined primarily by environment and choice.
Chris333
  • Sun May 11, 2008 9:45 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
ifeelfine,

You are willfully ignoring my posts.

"You are actually changing doctrine so as to believe the Bible is inerrent."

Where and how? You clearly have disregarded my entire argument.

"Thus, you don't take the Bible literally."

Well considering I do not do that, I suppose your "if then" statement is wrong. I have never said that the versuses discussing slavery are wrong, innaccurate, or for any other reason should not be there. Again, this is being willfully ignorant (no offense).

"I do that as well, Bmore does that too and he did that. He believes that those scriptures (as do I) are interpretted incorrectly by many Christians."

This is not what Bmore said, Bmore said that some passages in the Bible are innaccurate. You seem to be only hearing what you want to hear.

"I've stated many times how that is so and how the Bible is inerrent (but not literal)."

I have never heard you say the Bible is inerrant, but I will take your word for it. In any case, if the Bible is inerrant, but only with the right interpretation, which just so happens to contradict a great deal of what the Bible says, then the Bible is not inerrant, rather some "interpretation" is. Are you infallible? If not, then you are going to have to provide biblical support for why the Bible does not mean what it says. Regarding 1) Slavery and 2) Homosexuality. (The two are not in the same category either)

"Prove it isn't so."

Go back and read my posts. And you prove it is.
Chris333
  • Sun May 11, 2008 9:35 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
Bmore,

You said, "Catholicism claims they have the ultimate Truth about the passage "Unless you eat my body and drink my blood, you shall not have life within you." For Catholics, there is no other question or interpretation, despite the fact you may claim there is."

But you are not mentioning that the RCC claims itself as the sole "definer" of what the absolute truth is, in regard to spiritual manners. They are not going on a Sola Scripture argument, they are going on a, "My interpretation only" argument. If you claim divine infallibility for yourself, then you can start comparing yourself to the RCC.

"I think that is the same viewpoint as what I have."

So you are claiming infallibility?

"There most certainly are interpretations, for each and every Bible verse you claim condemns homosexuality, that refute what you are saying."

Please provide versus.

"You claim this is wrong with as much fury as a Catholic would about the Eucharist. Who is to say you have the Truth and I don't, or that I have the Truth and you don't?"

The law of contradiction. Either you have the truth and I don't, or I do and you don't. It is literally impossible that we both do. Also, the RCC claims they have the fullness of truth and Protestants don't.

"Fact of the matter is, if you believe something in the Bible that strongly, that is great for you, but there will always be people who feel you are wrong."

Can you please provide the argument for why you feel I am wrong? "Bmore says so" is not an argument, unfortunately. (Unless you are going to claim that infallibility)

"I am not calling you a sinner for not believing in the Eucharist in the same way I do. If you are wrong, it is not for me to judge you."

Strange, because the RCC does claim it is a sin not to take part in the Eucharist, within the Catholic Church. I think you are just picking and choosing what you believe on a personal basis.

"Truth is something that no one will have in its entirety until we are standing before Jesus."

I would doubt that we would have truth in its entirety even then, if we did we would have to be God. Nonetheless, even if the answer is not clear (but it is) that still doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and say, "All is lost, just believe what you want to believe and do what you want to do!" To do so is "spiritually suicidal" at best.
jar1961
  • Sun May 11, 2008 9:02 pm
  • : 0
  • : 1
  • Flag
BALMORE POST:

The reason young men and women are promiscuous is because they have a shattered image. Girls have objectified and in todays MYV culture and men like Bill CLinton who made oral sex something of an acceptable practice is why the STD rate is up.

God doesnt make junk and young people are no longer connected to their truly divine image. As for your other statments.. you blame everyone else in society for your behavior.. notice I didnt say orientation.. I said your acting out what as a Christian you should be putting off.

Okay Passages in John:

Passage John 14:26:
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

assage John 16:13:
13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Balmore how old are you? Neither of these passages have anything to do with homosexual behavior... I feel pity for you..

Let me say something... Given what you shared and all things being equal, if you came from a traditional family environment and can not find any environmental reason for your orientation then I can understand your frustration and anger..... but I will say this... and I do so with compassion..... there are "deviancies" in every species... but I would also challange you with this...

What Satan intends for evil God can use for good.. so hypothetically.. let's say Satan had a role in your orientation.... what if that is true because God has an even greater and higher purpose for your life but that by keeping you distracted through your orientation he renders you unable to be effectively used by God to your full potential?

Here is my challange for you... allow yourself to be sanctified for 60 days. In those 2 months allow God to direct you towards an effective ministry while remaining pure in thought and deed... see what happens
ifeelfine72
  • Sun May 11, 2008 6:48 pm
  • : 0
  • : 1
  • Flag
Chris333 said: "I have constantly explained my stance on slavery, without denying a single word in the Bible. Bmore both denied what was written in the Bible, claiming it is innaccurate, and then tried to make an argument based on the Bible. Thus undermining his argument."

You are actually changing doctrine so as to believe the Bible is inerrent. Thus, you don't take the Bible literally. I do that as well, Bmore does that too and he did that. He believes that those scriptures (as do I) are interpretted incorrectly by many Christians. I've stated many times how that is so and how the Bible is inerrent (but not literal). Prove it isn't so.
Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging Abusive, Spam, Offensive, Illegal, Racist or Libellous Posts.

Comment on this story

ID Password
Submit Don't have a Christian Post ID?Signing up is easy. Click Here