mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/09/86)
Glenn Thain writes: ["he" is me in this passage] > I personally don't care what he allows his children to read. That portion >is academical. I do care that he attempts to justify review boards on the >grounds that escapist literature should have some redeeming religious value, >nay redeeming Christian religious value in order for it to be allowed to be >published and avaliable for comsumption. Now this is not at all what I said. I said that a lot of people are prepared to read Clarke critically. I did NOT say that the government or the church or any other such community authority should therefore be regulating the content of books. Such organizations have as their concern the suppression of the truth. > The ire raised was entirely on the issue of censorship of others on the >grounds that science fiction is a religiously destablizing factor, therefore >we must protect the children from themselves by instituting a board which >will review the suitablity of books and literature, conforming to a >politically correct, ( or in this case a religiously correct) way of >thinking. There is a lot of good science fictional writing on religious issues-- most of which disagrees with my personal beliefs on the details. THe agreement comes in the assessment that religion is not a world of simple answers. The Clarke books offend against this in that, for whatever reason, they skirt the difficult issues, NOT because they are atheistic. There is better writing on religion in fantasy, partly due to the differeing classes of authros and partly due to the fact that fantasy makes no pretense at literal truth, while science fiction requires at least plausibility of a strictly scientific sort. Charles Williams books reek of religion (I recommend them with the caveat that many of them are very difficult reading), and even though he was a christian, most of them do not concern themselves with matters of christian doctrine, or even with christianity at all. A person who is not aware of what they are doing will merely be confused. > I'm afraid I tend to be one of those people in net.religion who believe >that the way we teach religion to our children is wrong. I just havn't >figured out a way to do it any better. The problem with suggesting >alternatives here means bucking the vouge religious power within the >country. Oh I agree, and I would add that review councils are death to any kind of serious religious thought. They also have the serious drawback that they make the banned books objects of attraction, particularly those living in rejection of societal mores-- the group least likely to read the critically. All the same, I don't agree to the view that therefore nothing at all should be done. The question is acheiving the appropriate degree of subtlety. I went to a church school, deeply anglican. In the school library, among other things, there was a copy of _Mein Kampf_. Just sitting there on the shelves. Anyone could check it out, just like any other book. Nevertheless, I do not think that anyone could have read the book naively and undercritically, because there were too many people who would notice and comment. At least one of the chaplains would be sure to ask you why you were reading it and what you thought of it. Obviously this is too strong an action for a public library. But I think that cultivating an attitude of careful and critical reading in society is a good aim. C. Wingate