book on anime and manga removed at a library.

[Syreth]

Those themes discussed in the Bible do not use images and are not in an overly descriptive manner. In other words, you won't find a description of a woman caught in adultery in the Bible written about like in a romance novel. There's a clear difference.

[Steeltemplar]

Ah, but who decides the difference between protection and censorship. And last I knew, Govt. or State run places such as Librarys do not fall under the law of the Bible. Church and State girl. By your logic however, parts of the Bible could be a stumbling block to children. Rape, incest, murder, etc. Belive it or not, I understand the point of those who want to protect children. But at the same time, I just don't agree with removing things rather then putting them where they belong. Should we censor some classic art because it contains nudity?

"So perhaps we can agree that the optimum situation would be that the book be placed in a supervised/restricted area?"

I agree with that 100%.

I think that the difference is that the Bible does not feature pictures or explicit portrayals of these things. The book in question, on the other hand, has at least one image that explicitly portrays a sexual act.

I certainly think that there should be a balance wherein we have a strict and well defined guideline for what is and is not appropriate for general access.

EDIT: I am glad that we can find some common ground on it.

[ChristianKitsune]

Ah, but Ark, we are to not live of THIS world but of God! Aren't we?

Matthew 8:13-16 says this 13"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.
14"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

WE ARE TO LIVE LIKE LAMPS ON A HILL! LIKE SALT! IF WE DON'T WHERE IS THE DIFFERENCE?! IF WE ACCEPT THIS, WHY NOT ACCEPT OTHER THINGS?!

And are you saying that the Bible has faults? Why not rip those parts out then? Those parts of the bible were never EVER looked on in a positive light. And God used them as a teaching tool.

Also, the Bible doesn't have graphic pictures that will burn holes in a child's innocence.

[Stephen]

And again CR. I will point out, that our Government in this country no longer uses the Bible as its law. So while you and your family may abide by a set of rules laid out in the Bible, your Goverment will not.

"Are you saying the Bible has faults?"

No. I firmly belive the Book is 100% right and I base my faith on it.

I belive Steeltemplar hit the nail on the head. Stricter rules of viewing beat censorship.

[Arnobius]

"So perhaps we can agree that the optimum situation would be that the book be placed in a supervised/restricted area?"

I agree with that 100%.

Personally, so do I. Perhaps so will the Supervisor who made the ban. He did call on the library system of San Bernadino County to come up with a plan to make sure this doesn't happen again.

Then perhaps the book can be returned to the library. I think this supervisor acted as he did because the library did not have such a safeguard in place.

I do understand that sometimes a serious work needs to have a graphic portrayal of some material, but in those cases, access needs to be controlled to prevent minors from handling it. A place that does not have those safeguards in place ought not to have the material available.

[ChristianKitsune]

And that sir, is what is wrong with this Country... that's why our country is suffering, we have Taken God out of our lives and replaced it with worldy laws.

I am sorry, but I believe the book needed to be taken out, if someone wants to read it they can buy it.

[heero yuy 95]

Listen, folks, it's basically a porn book! what next?! are we gonna have threads supporting playboys at libraries?! This isn't about "freedom of speech" or any of that crap. it's about descency, something this country was built upon. if ya really want to see a book with pornographic content that bad, then just go to an adult book store, but don't demad that they have that crap in librairies where little kids go. -__-

[Stephen]

I do understand that sometimes a serious work needs to have a graphic portrayal of some material, but in those cases, access needs to be controlled to prevent minors from handling it. A place that does not have those safeguards in place ought not to have the material available.

I misread the article then. I was under the impression that the book was being pulled for good. While I see no issue with pulling it till they can put it in the right area, I was against yanking it for good. It would seem that you Steeltemplar and I are all saying the same thing now. I was never in support of leaving adult material out for kids to see. Thats why I would hope a lable and a section change would help the problem. I would hate to think of adult material being scattered through the Curious George section.

[Steeltemplar]

I belive Steeltemplar hit the nail on the head. Stricter rules of viewing beat censorship.

Ah, good. Again, glad we have that consensus. It is good when a debate may be provided with a productive end

Indeed, society does not serve itself well by being overstrict (that in itself can sometimes add the mystique of forbidden fruit). Reasonable restriction as we are speaking of is, however, something we could use more of in our society.

[Stephen]

I am waiting for Nate to post about how our Forfathers had the Bible used, yet were lousy Christians. *laughs*

[Arnobius]

I misread the article then. I was under the impression that the book was being pulled for good. While I see no issue with pulling it till they can put it in the right area, I was against yanking it for good. It would seem that you Steeltemplar and I are all saying the same thing now. I was never in support of leaving adult material out for kids to see. Thats why I would hope a lable and a section change would help the problem. I would hate to think of adult material being scattered through the Curious George section.

Yes, I regret earlier harshness in my tone.

I may be mistaken in my reading of this Supervisor's intent, but as I see it, if the library takes proper safeguards, serious works of study might be handled properly, with access to those who need it.

[Nate]

I am waiting for Nate to post about how our Forfathers had the Bible used, yet were lousy Christians. *laughs*

Heh heh. Yeah they were. Well, considering one of them rewrote the Bible removing any and all references to Christ's divinity (the Jefferson Bible). I'm pretty sure the actual number of America's founders that were Christians was quite low (though I do not have a figure, nor would I make one up).

[Steeltemplar]

Heh heh. Yeah they were. Well, considering one of them rewrote the Bible removing any and all references to Christ's divinity (the Jefferson Bible). I'm pretty sure the actual number of America's founders that were Christians was quite low (though I do not have a figure, nor would I make one up).

I have read quotes be Jefferson which are very critical indeed of Christianity, so this does not surprise me.

What was he? A deist, right? I know at least a couple of them were.

[Arnobius]

Heh heh. Yeah they were. Well, considering one of them rewrote the Bible removing any and all references to Christ's divinity (the Jefferson Bible). I'm pretty sure the actual number of America's founders that were Christians was quite low (though I do not have a figure, nor would I make one up).

Well, I think many of them were more of Deists, believing in God, though not necessarily in the Christian message.

[Myoti]

So then... is there an actual reason for continuing this anymore?
If another debate starts, I don't see how it will actually solve anything.

[ChristianKitsune]

I ask one question:

Why do you guys think God is moving in countries where he ISN'T allowed than here in the U.S?

What are we allowing? How are we paying for it?

[Stephen]

If people can discuss things without it getting ugly, I see no reason to close the thread. (See the last 4 pages or so for a good example of a discussion free of "uglies")

"I ask one question:

Why do you guys think God is moving in countries where he ISN'T allowed than here in the U.S?

What are we allowing? How are we paying for it?"

Thats a bit off topic, but I will say this. Hunger. In America, you can find God quite easy. Its the same logic, if I tell you that you cannot have a cookie, your gonna want it more. In a nation where God is outlawed, people want Him even more.

[Nate]

I ask one question:

Why do you guys think God is moving in countries where he ISN'T allowed than here in the U.S?

What are we allowing? How are we paying for it?

I think that gets into a dangerous area, of stating we know what God is thinking and what God is planning. It also further states that we know the reasons He does things. Since I am a mere mortal, incapable of comprehending the mind of the almight and eternal God, I do not presume to know why He does what He does.

QUICK EDIT: Unless you were meaning it how Steve interpreted it, as in why are people in other countries more devoted to God...sorry...I didn't see it that way, and if that's how you meant it, disregard my post. ^^;;

[Puritan]

CR, why is God moving in countries that kill and persecute Christians daily, or countries where heretical groups such as the Lords Resistance Army kill and enslave people and claim they serve God? I don't know, but I doubt it's because we aren't censoring this type of thing from libraries or becuase our system of law is secular rather than religious. Our country is, assuredly, going against the will of God, but I don't know if censorship will solve that problem. The problem rests in the hearts of men, which can only be changed by God. I would agree with the current consensus, that we should keep this book from easy access for children, but that the banning of this would be counterproductive. We must train our children to stay away from hentai and not support such things rather than banning them, as a ban tends to cause problems with organized crime and the desire for "forbidden fruit".

Just look at the Prohibition. The ban on alcohol was supposed to reduce crime, end drinking problems, and help the country. Instead it brought power to the Mafia and other crime lords who made bootleg alcohol and caused alcohol to become an illicit and tantalizing thing because it was banned. Far better to regulate this type of thing and allow people to make their own choices, in my opinion.

[ChristianKitsune]

What I am trying to say is.

In countries where people who aren't allowed to believe in God, yet those who do serve him with all their heart, do so at the risk of their lives. Yet the Word is still spread.

A man from my church was killed a few years back in Yeman during a terrosist plot around Christmas time. He was found in his office...This country is known for not allowing Christ in their country.

Puritan, I am not saying to BAN The book entirely, what I AM saying is, why have we allowed this stuff to be circulated in the first place.

Whether we want to admit it or not, Christians today aren't as strong as they used to be. We have gotten used to living like the world, and only when a tradgedy or a really awesome experiecne will get us yelling and whooping for God.

I wonder, if everyone here on CAA were to leave their anime, their computers for just a day, and went out and told at least 10 people about Christ...What effect would that have...

seriously...what if we continue to allow things in our lives that will cause the world to stumble. Already, Hollywood has made movies that Christians shouldn't be supporting, yet, we do. Why? If we are called by Christ to live higher than the world, do we allow ourselves to view or read stuff that will hurt us spiritually?

I am sorry for my rant...but I am worried about where we are going, I worry when my friends get hurt because of their sins, I worry when my friends won't listen to God. I worry when I won't listen to God and do what I want to do.

Jesus gave his LIFE for us...why aren't we giving him ours?

I am sorry if I went off topic, but this got me thinking...

[Nate]

Whether we want to admit it or not, Christians today aren't as strong as they used to be.

I don't agree with that. In Revelation when John speaks to the church in Laodicea, he said, "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other!" - Revelation 3:15. This isn't a "new" problem, Kitchan...it's always been around, and at least as far as the Bible states, they weren't any better than we are.

Already, Hollywood has made movies that Christians shouldn't be supporting, yet, we do.

I'm not sure which movies you're talking about, and don't want to state my thoughts because it would be assuming I know what movies you are speaking of, and if I were right, it would spark an even larger debate.

What I see more of, though, is unless a movie is explicit pornography, I don't see where it is your call to state that a movie shouldn't be supported by Christians. Everyone has their own standards (remember Romans?). "Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand." - Romans 14:4

[Puritan]

My apologies, CR, but I can't agree with you. How should I stop the circulation of this book? I don't buy it and my stance against pornography is clear to those who know me. I can't really do anything else to stop this except vote with my money, which is what I do. However, despite our efforts people will still want to buy pornography in one form or another, so we can do two things, in my opinion. We can tell them it is wrong and do our best to stop the sale of pornography by trying to convince people that it is bad, or we can ban it. Our current work is done in the first category, and I think that is the best way to go.

Secondly, how are we not as strong as we used to be? Please, read the letters of Paul in the New Testament. These are not letters to wonderous churches that had everything worked out, they are letters to churches that are struggling with the exact same things we struggle with: sexual immorality, lust, greed, dealing with an evil world. We are dealing with the exact same issues we have had to deal with since the fall of man, and Christians are still on the forefront of resistance against evil by the grace of God and His empowering of us. I freely admit that Christians do do things that we shouldn't. We all do evil and compromise when we shouldn't but is that what causes the world to stumble? The world is evil and will continue to do evil no matter what we do, it's not like the church can actually inspire people to greater depravity than the people already have.

Despite the flaws in the Church, I see no reason to act as if the Church is weakening. Our salvation does not lie in laws or rituals, but in the empowering grace of God which overcomes the evil in this world, and I see the Church striving to take this grace to the ends of the earth. We must always strive to avoid evil in this world and to deal with sin, and I don't want to make it seem as if I'm ignoring the things that are wrong with our society. However, I see a Church that is as it always has been: a collection of sinful people who are beloved of God and used by Him to do His will despite their wrongdoing. While we aren't perfect, I don't think we are any more flawed than we have ever been.

[Mithrandir]

CR: What you are advocating is forcing the STATE to apply a set of RELIGIOUS or MORAL principals. This is called, "Theocracy."

Here is my counter question: Do you want to live in a Democracy or a Theocracy? There are modern day theocracies, to be sure. It seems to me you may not have thought through the nuances of converting the United States of America to a "Christian Nation."

[Kaligraphic]

Okay, so we're talking about a book concerning the history of Japanese manga? As in, something that ought to be filed under about 740 in the Dewey system? This would put it squarely in the art section.

If you look in almost any history of European art, you will certainly find paintings of nudes, as many of the great painters produced them. Is this somehow more acceptable than such images produced by Japanese artists? Or perhaps it is that Japanese erotic art must be banned because Japan is more interesting to children than Europe? Surely you don't think that Europe would buy these pictures for somehow "purer" purposes?

The book therefor was clearly mis-shelved, and should simply have been placed in an appropriate location. Every serious library that I've been in has marked on each nonfiction book (usually on the spine) the Dewey Decimal Number - my guess would be that they had a new volunteer who didn't think to check that number.


As far as keeping kids "innocent," we need to remember that everyone is born guilty, with a sin nature - thus the most you can do is keep them ignorant. Alternately, you could introduce them to the gospel, and by faith they will be innocent and blameless even when exposed to the real world. In any case, I can't really acknowledge a false innocence as a valid factor in my logic - if I want to think accurately, I can only base my thinking on what really exists. Perhaps this seems too ruthlessly logical, but my thinking does tend to be rather strictly quantified and logical.

In any case, I think Puritan hits that nail on the head where he says, "Our salvation does not lie in laws or rituals, but in the empowering grace of God which overcomes the evil in this world...". It's not what you do or don't do, what you see or don't see, but the grace of God that makes you righteous.


Oh, and I think that God is moving quite a bit in the United States - if you don't see it, perhaps you should expand your field of view?

[Bobtheduck]

Why would a general "history of manga" contain bestiality in it? Not THAT disgusts me... I'm sorry, tech, but bestiality and hardcore porn DEFINATELY doesn't belong in the public library for anyone to pull up. If it were just nudity, then whatever... There are artbooks and things like "Virtual pose" and all of that which will have nudity, but hardcore porn and bestiality? No place in a Library. EDIT: I said tech, but I guess my comment should be a little wider than just to him. I say this to everyone in here...

[teen4truth]

Um I am sorry to be just popping in on this conversation, but there are far too many long posts for me to read all of tonight lol.

I think they were right, pornagraphy should not be available to just grab out of a library(no matter how old you are!) and it most certainly should not be paid for with tax payer dollors.

Oh and guys honestly NUDITY IS PORN. God did not make the human body to just be freely looked at, no matter if it is titled 'art' or 'science' or whatever.

[Bobtheduck]

Hmm... Throwing science in there... I guess you have a problem with doctors, Teen4Truth? Listen, hun, first off I think you're very wrong on this point. Especially throwing science into the mix. If a doctor doesn't study the human body, he or she will never be able to do his or her job.

Secondly, fight the fights you can win.

So as my original point doesn't get lost, you did notice that this book contained pictures from bestiality manga? Seriously is anyone in here actually going to defend that? Hardcore porn shouldn't be in Libraries, period. It's people's varying degrees on here that make it hard to discuss this, though. With extremists on one end saying nothing should ever be "censored" and removing a book with hardcore porn in it from the library is "censorship" to those who say "We shouldn't have people in bikinis because it's porn"

[Puritan]

Of course we aren't defending hardcore pornography, Bob. I freely admit that this disgusts me and I think it was in extrordinarily bad taste for this to be published. However, I can also understand the decision to include this hentai in a book about the history of Manga, because this type of thing is sadly present in some manga. If the book is a general reference work that includes these images as information rather than being a book focused on sexuality, I would still understand and agree with the decision to keep this book, albeit in a restricted section or behind the library desk so that those under 18 couldn't access it, and with a warning on it.

I freely admit that I would prefer this not exist, but I think we also need to be careful in censoring reference works or books in general. The question becomes, where is it appropriate to draw the line for censorship? While libraries do not stock purely pornographic material, they have refrained from censoring all material that could be pornographic or is partially pornographic in order to allow important reference works into the library. Many works of famous classical art can be considered pornographic, as can many books that are regularly stocked on library shelves, but the removal of many of these works would inhibit the study of pieces of history.

Consider also the idea of censoring things which are offensive. I will agree that this type of hardcore pornography is offensive, but what else is there in the library reference section that is offensive? Shall we remove Mein Kampf for being a vile and poorly written diatribe against Jews, Das Kapital for being anti-capitalist, Atlas Shrugged for despising charity, The Malleus Mallefectarum for being against witches, or the Bible for saying homosexuals are sinners? What about some of the offensive works like Poe, Dante, or the Brothers Grimm for being overly violent, or The Book of One Thousand and One Nights or the Cantebury Tales for being sexually explicit? We need to take care in banning books in order to keep a balance between expurgating everything and limiting people's knowledge of the world and censoring nothing and having a flow of unfiltered stuff flowing from our libraries, and while I don't always like or agree with the results, I have to say that I think the system we have today is better than otherwise, even if junk like this will be acessible to over-eighteen year olds.

[Technomancer]

And he did so. He felt it was inappropriate for people his age and brought it to the attention to his mother who he saw as a responsible adult,

Then he has most decidedly learned the wrong lessons. Instead of taking the mature and responsible approach by simply ceasing to read the material, he has instead learned that it is acceptable to have offending books expunged. This is simply unacceptable in an organization that ought to be dedicated to the free access of books by all of its patrons. We see that the context of the offending book is ignored, despite its obviously being a historical work on a popular cultural phenomenon. Moreover, given that anime and manga are both entirely visual mediums, it is pretty much impossible for any such history not to print the pictures. It is likewise impossible to ignore hentai in such a history, despite a lot of people desperately trying to wish it away. The purpose of the book is to document anime and manga as it is, not to peddle smut, nor to invent a bawlderized version that glosses over the unsavoury bits.

I will say this again, it is not the job of a public library to defend your moral choices, that is for you to do as individuals and as parents. Neither is it the job of the library to ensure that children only read the books that there parents wish them to. The job of the library is to provide a range of material to the reading public, and not merely their children.

If you look in almost any history of European art, you will certainly find paintings of nudes, as many of the great painters produced them. Is this somehow more acceptable than such images produced by Japanese artists? Or perhaps it is that Japanese erotic art must be banned because Japan is more interesting to children than Europe? Surely you don't think that Europe would buy these pictures for somehow "purer" purposes?

Assuredly not. A good deal of European art was meant for rather private viewings. The "Rokeby Venus" for example was one such painting, and it caused quite a scandal when it was first seen by the public.

*Edit: We shall soon see about all this. My public library has three copies available in general circulation, and I should be able to pick one of them up tomorrow.

[Nate]

Oh and guys honestly NUDITY IS PORN. God did not make the human body to just be freely looked at, no matter if it is titled 'art' or 'science' or whatever.

Though I respect your convictions, I strongly disagree with you, and will support my position with Biblical evidence. To say God did not make the human body to be freely looked at, is calling Genesis false. For God created Adam and Eve naked, and they were not ashamed. They were naked until they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and only then did they become ashamed and try to hide their nudity.

In its purest state, nudity is not pornography, it is the way we were created, and God said it was very good. Since God hates perversion, and is incapable of lying, it is the only logical assumption that nudity is good, it is the world that has twisted and perverted it into something that is sinful.