Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, September 02, 2019

A Catholic school in Nashville, Tennessee has banned the Harry Potter series ... "These books present magic as both good and evil, which is not true, but in fact a clever deception," Rev. [Dan] Reehil said of the seven-part Harry Potter book series. "The curses and spells used in the books are actual curses and spells; which when read by a human being risk conjuring evil spirits into the presence of the person reading the text," the email continues.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

And that is another reason that red states lag in educational attainment and drag the country down.
Lincoln lost the civil war by winning it.

#1 | Posted by bored at 2019-09-03 01:45 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"And that is another reason that red states lag in educational attainment and drag the country down.
Lincoln lost the civil war by winning it.

#1 | POSTED BY BORED AT 2019-09-03 01:45 AM "

So much wrong here.

Catholic schools are private, not public. I'm pretty sure you can figure out the rest.

#2 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-03 01:48 AM | Reply

Catholic schools are private and it's their prerogative.

While they're at it, they should ban molesting children too. It'd make better sense.

#3 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2019-09-03 06:47 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

They should ban them because they are boring AF, not on religious grounds.

#4 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-09-03 08:22 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

my daughter had a nun criticize harry potter once....I told the principal to tell her to shut her yap.

most catholics find this position absurd. It's a very small minority.

#5 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-03 08:23 AM | Reply

In my seven years in Catholic elementary school I met teachers and principals who made Dolores Umbridge look like your favorite kindergarten teacher...

#6 | Posted by catdog at 2019-09-03 09:05 AM | Reply

The first Harry Potter book was published in 1997 - they must be very slow readers in Tennessee.

#7 | Posted by Foreigner at 2019-09-03 09:59 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

And that is another reason that red states lag in educational attainment and drag the country down.

Over the last 4 or 5 years, progressives have abdicated any high ground they may have held regarding the banning of offensive thoughts or ideas. Who would have ever believed it would be progressives who treated Farenheit 451 as a how-to guide?

#8 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-09-03 11:38 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Catholic schools are private and it's their prerogative."

Gawd werks in mysterious ways and only He would understand why the Catholics wish to increase the sales of Harry Potter books to young teens who will now be insanely curious at to what magic these books must contain to worry this priest so much.

#9 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-09-03 11:39 AM | Reply

--Who would have ever believed it would be progressives who treated Farenheit 451 as a how-to guide?

Our libraries are burdened with too many books by white males.

Library Journal Laments 'Proliferate Whiteness' Of Authors With Books 'Physically Taking Up Space In Our Libraries'

"Sofia Y. Leung, who describes herself as an "academic librarian" and lists intersectional feminism, social justice, and cats as things she likes.

Leung explains that most publications found in libraries "are written by white dudes writing about white ideas, white things, or ideas, people, and things they stole from POC and then claimed as white property." She goes on bashing "whiteness" and then quickly determines that "[l]ibrary collections continue to promote and proliferate whiteness with their very existence and the fact that they are physically taking up space in our libraries."

townhall.com

#10 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-03 11:49 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

"Over the last 4 or 5 years, progressives have abdicated any high ground..."

Progressives burning books?

I call BS

#11 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-09-03 11:50 AM | Reply

Re #11

One incident of one person talking nonsense does not prove anything.

Like so many of your posts.

Garbage.

#12 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-09-03 11:52 AM | Reply

One incident of one person talking nonsense does not prove anything.

It proves everything Nulli need it to prove.

It's become his tactic. Find one Democrat doing something and use them to paint the entire party.

Meanwhile ignore the entire Republican Party being guilty of what you're accusing the democrats of.

#13 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-09-03 11:57 AM | Reply

--One incident of one person talking nonsense does not prove anything.

This is what Leftists always do. If I provided 10 examples they would say "ten incidents do not prove anything."

In fact, I could post links all day to incidents of leftwing attempts to ban books from libraries, being sold on Amazon, remove books from college curriculums, or even being published.

#14 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-03 12:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I could post links all day to incidents of leftwing attempts to ban books

Go for it.

Then make a list of books banned by the right wing.

See which one is longer, see if you can identify the types of books the right bans compared to the left.

I'm interested your results.

#15 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-09-03 12:09 PM | Reply

--Go for it.

Why bother? Leftists won't read links that don't confirm their biases. They'll just slaughter the source or claim that the Leftist censors don't represent the Left. Complete waste of time.

#16 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-03 12:12 PM | Reply

Why bother? Leftists won't read links that don't confirm their biases. They'll just slaughter the source or claim that the Leftist censors don't represent the Left. Complete waste of time.

#16 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2019-09-03 12:12 PM | REPLY

You should bother because unless you do your assertion is baseless. I have never heard of a book being banned by any group other than conservatives who feel the need to protect us from Harry Potter and Huckleberry Finn

bannedbooksweek.org

I see 10 banned based on coservative ideology and 1 banned based on liberal ideology

The Top 11 Challenged Books of 2018 are:

George by Alex Gino
Reasons: banned, challenged, and relocated because it was believed to encourage children to clear browser history and change their bodies using hormones, and for mentioning "dirty magazines," describing male anatomy, "creating confusion," and including a transgender character
A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo by Jill Twiss, illustrated by EG Keller
Reasons: banned and challenged for including LGBTQIA+ content, and for political and religious viewpoints
Captain Underpants series written and illustrated by Dav Pilkey
Reasons: series was challenged because it was perceived as encouraging disruptive behavior, while Captain Underpants and the Sensational Saga of Sir Stinks-A-Lot was challenged for including a same-sex couple
The Hate U Give by Angie Thomas
Reasons: banned and challenged because it was deemed "anti-cop," and for profanity, drug use, and sexual references
Drama written and illustrated by Raina Telgemeier
Reasons: banned and challenged for including LGBTQIA+ characters and themes
Thirteen Reasons Why by Jay Asher
Reasons: banned, challenged, and restricted for addressing teen suicide
This One Summer by Mariko Tamaki, illustrated by Jillian Tamaki
Reasons: banned and challenged for profanity, sexual references, and certain illustrations
Skippyjon Jones series written and illustrated by Judy Schachner
Reason: challenged for depicting stereotypes of Mexican culture
The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian by Sherman Alexie
Reasons: banned and challenged for sexual references, profanity, violence, gambling, and underage drinking, and for its religious viewpoint
This Day in June by Gayle E. Pitman, illustrated by Kristyna Litten
Reason: challenged and burned for including LGBTQIA+ content
Two Boys Kissing by David Levithan
Reason: challenged and burned for including LGBTQIA+ content

#17 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-09-03 12:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--You should bother because unless you do your assertion is baseless

Yeah, whatever.

#18 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-03 01:00 PM | Reply

Nulli... that is why we have something called "statistics". It allows people to magically draw conclusions from large sets of data and numbers of incidents, instead of relying on listing anecdotal evidence.

I know, I know. You are Republican and believe things like that are "elitist". But statics provide many tools that allow you to draw conclusions based upon fact and data instead of "going with your gut" based upon the anecdotes you have seen.

And that is why you will continue to be owned on forums like this, where you say "I could make you a list, but I am going to go sulk instead". Because until you learn to use all the tools available to you, you will constantly be hamstrung in trying to present effective arguments.

#19 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-09-03 01:22 PM | Reply

"Why bother? Leftists won't read links that don't confirm their biases."

Sounds like you know any true investigation would show you to be wrong, and that's your real fear.

#20 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-09-03 01:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--And that is why you will continue to be owned on forums like this

Well I'm certainly outnumbered on this far-left forum. If you want to call that being "owned" go ahead. Doesn't bother me.

#21 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-03 01:34 PM | Reply

"Well I'm certainly outnumbered on this far-left forum. "

The numbers have nothing to do with it. You made a stupid claim, and got called on it. The list of 2018 banned books proves you wrong, as would any other year's list during our lifetimes.

#22 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-09-03 01:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

*yawn*

#23 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-03 01:46 PM | Reply

17

I didn't see where those books were banned or by whom.

my kids read some of those in school.....a catholic school.

and you appear to be drawing your own conclusions on "conservative ideology" being the reason those were banned.

IOW, it's pretty subjective. Yes, no doubt there are some snooty, uptight conservatives that would ban books listed...so I'm not calling --------....

#24 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-03 02:08 PM | Reply

I didn't see where those books were banned or by whom.
my kids read some of those in school.....a catholic school.
and you appear to be drawing your own conclusions on "conservative ideology" being the reason those were banned.
IOW, it's pretty subjective. Yes, no doubt there are some snooty, uptight conservatives that would ban books listed...so I'm not calling --------....

#24 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2019-09-03 02:08 PM

These are the top 11 books that were actually banned the most.
It clearly states why each one was banned.
10 of the 11 were banned for reasons that are only consistent with conservative ideology.
Get your head out of the sand

Going back through their data for the past 20 years well over 90% of the books that have been banned were banned by snooty uptight conservatives. That absolutely disproves your claim that In fact, you could post links all day to incidents of leftwing attempts to ban books from libraries, being sold on Amazon, remove books from college curriculums, or even being published. The truth is you can't

#25 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-09-03 02:32 PM | Reply

-That absolutely disproves your claim that In fact, you could post links all day to incidents of leftwing attempts to ban books from libraries, being sold on Amazon, remove books from college curriculums, or even being published. The truth is you can't

I never made any such claim.

#26 | Posted by eberly at 2019-09-03 03:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#11 I didn't say they were burning books. You take my reference to Fahrenheit 451 too literally (pun intended). I said progressives have become the ones seeking to banning offensive thoughts or ideas. You cannot POSSIBLY, in this new age of "taking personal offense", safe spaces, microaggressions, et al, honestly believe otherwise.

Cite banned books all you want, if that's what makes you sleep better. I'll counter with demonetized youtube accounts, banned twitter accounts, giant lists of banned terms, the protests of conservative speakers at campuses, etc.

#27 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-09-03 03:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

You cannot POSSIBLY, in this new age of "taking personal offense", safe spaces, microaggressions, et al, honestly believe otherwise.

#27 | POSTED BY MUSTANG

And what do you think the uproar over kneeling in the NFL was? Conservatives up in arms over their "safe space" being violated with politics they did not agree with.

And how about your own snowflake-in-chief? Does he not "take personal offense" ALL THE TIME? Hell... he "takes personal offense" when the NWS points out that Dorian is not ACTUALLY going to hit Alabama.

I get Goatman telling me almost every day how I should be NICE to the Trumpers and not point out to them how idiotic they were for electing him, because they might get their poor little feelings hurt and vote for him again out of spite.

One thing I have found to be very consistent, is that if you want to know what Republicans are thinking or doing, just look at what they accuse others of. And they love to call liberals snowflakes.

You know why? Because the term, and concept behind, "snowflake" fits conservatives to a tee.

#28 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-09-03 04:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Catholic schools are private, not public. I'm pretty sure you can figure out the rest."

I wish Republicans could figure out the rest.
Alas, Republicans still want private schools to get taxpayer dollars in the form of vouchers.
They call it Freedom.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-03 04:55 PM | Reply

"I get Goatman telling me almost every day how I should be NICE to the Trumpers and not point out to them how idiotic they were for electing him,"

#28 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL AT 2019-09-03 04:44 PM

Please cite just one post (much less "almost every day") where I have said that, liar. GDS runs deep with this one.

#30 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-03 05:20 PM | Reply

It's not about lists...

The only question about who is banning books, is resolved if you are against Citizens United.

If you are against it then you are leading the way in book banning.

#31 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-09-03 07:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

--Who would have ever believed it would be progressives who treated Farenheit 451 as a how-to guide?
Our libraries are burdened with too many books by white males.
Library Journal Laments 'Proliferate Whiteness' Of Authors With Books 'Physically Taking Up Space In Our Libraries'
"Sofia Y. Leung, who describes herself as an "academic librarian" and lists intersectional feminism, social justice, and cats as things she likes.
Leung explains that most publications found in libraries "are written by white dudes writing about white ideas, white things, or ideas, people, and things they stole from POC and then claimed as white property." She goes on bashing "whiteness" and then quickly determines that "[l]ibrary collections continue to promote and proliferate whiteness with their very existence and the fact that they are physically taking up space in our libraries."
townhall.com
#10 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2019-09-03 11:49 AM

The Bible being the penultimate example?

Imo, this topic is an example of one persons imagination attempting to override the many. The hubris of Reverend Reehil is astounding, but that he would stifle the creativity of others makes him a monster, imo.

#32 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-09-03 09:41 PM | Reply

Mackris beat me to the CU thing.

During the oral arguments Alito asked the government lawyer if McCain-Feingold also applied to books (CU was about a movie that was critical of Hillary Clinton) and the lawyer responded with, "Yes."

When discussing CU liberals and progressives scream, "Money isn't speech!" Meaning, the government should have the power to ban books and political speech, 1st Amendment be damned.

Mustang GT totally nailed it up-thread. On the whole, lefties are FAR more into censorship than righties. It's not even close.

#33 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-04 10:25 AM | Reply

"You should bother because unless you do your assertion is baseless"

Yeah, whatever.

#18 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Interesting.

That's kinda what I think every time you post bro.

#34 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-09-04 10:36 AM | Reply

When discussing CU liberals and progressives scream, "Money isn't speech!" Meaning, the government should have the power to ban books and political speech, 1st Amendment be damned.

#33 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-09-04 10:25 AM | REPLY

Easy to know down paper tigers you put up. I don't think anyone believes money isn't speech means the government should have the power to ban books and political speech.

What it means is that someone with $500 doesn't have more right to speak than a person with $1.

Both should have the same freedom of speech. More money does not give someone more right to speak than someone with less money

#35 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-09-04 10:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I don't think anyone believes money isn't speech means the government should have the power to ban books and political speech...

#35 | POSTED BY HATTER5183

What do you think Citizens United was about?

It was about government banning political speech, in this instance it was in the form of a movie.

Lefties scream that CU was the worst SCOTUS opinion of all time because they think government should be able to engage in political censorship.

There is no way you can put lipstick on this pig.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-04 10:55 AM | Reply

"Lefties scream that CU was the worst SCOTUS opinion of all time because they think government should be able to engage in political censorship."

More like the floodgates for dark money.

#37 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-09-04 11:02 AM | Reply

My problem isn't banned books. It's what is not even read.

Constitution
Declaration of Independence
Common Sense
Federalist papers
Marbury decision
The farewell address of George Washington

#38 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-09-04 03:49 PM | Reply

"There is no way you can put lipstick on this pig."

Actually, it's the opposite of that.
The way it is now, the more money you have, the more lipstick you get to put on the pig.

That's what you support.
I don't understand why.
Though Occam's Razor suggests in your mind, the political views you favor have more money to buy more lipstick.

A truly level playing field would give all political aspirants the same pool of public resources with which to compete.
Again, the best reason I can think of that you don't want that is you agree with what moneyed interests want from politics.

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-04 03:55 PM | Reply

You guys are so Booksmart

#40 | Posted by LesWit at 2019-09-04 05:17 PM | Reply

Lefties scream that CU was the worst SCOTUS opinion of all time because they think government should be able to engage in political censorship.
There is no way you can put lipstick on this pig.

#36 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-09-04 10:55 AM | REPLY |

Lefties do not and have not wanted government censorship. What we oppose is dark money including foreign dollars funding speech for one candidate that drowns out all the others. You guys get in a tizzy when people shout down the speaker at a college when that at least is a group of voices. Why are you ok with one guy writing a check for a big bullhorn that does the same thing?

#41 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-09-05 09:11 AM | Reply

Lefties scream that CU was the worst SCOTUS opinion of all time because they think government should be able to engage in political censorship.
There is no way you can put lipstick on this pig.
#36 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-09-04 10:55 AM | REPLY |

reclaimdemocracy.org

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

#42 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-09-05 09:20 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort