Homeschool World Forum

Like I said, it's an issue of libraries being partially taxpayer-funded. If a private library wants to open and stock this stuff, I won't object, but I strongly object to having my tax money go to help pay for sex, violence, etc. themed children's books to be bought and/or displayed. If they're using my money, then I should have a say, though it should take a large majority opinion to actually get a book banned. A few percent of people objecting to Harry Potter is a lot different from 90%+ of people objecting to some of the books on that list.

I think people write what speaks to them, what is in their souls and sometimes, what is commercially viable. When I write, it has to have meaning to me. It's an art. Some do write as journeymen to what sells though.

When my kids were teeny, they picked out a library book to look at the pictures and have us read to them. They liked the brightly-colored pictures of children.

As I read it through at home, I was horrified. It was about a school class who had a sub and how horrible the sub was and how the kids all cooperated to be disrespectful to her, and how they hated a few of their classmates for not fitting in and the rest of them cooperated to bully those kids. The pictures tended to be of elementary school kids being totally out of control, spitting, making awful faces, doing disgusting things, etc.

I decided we were never bringing a library book home again unless I'd looked through it at the library and okayed it.

DH went to a workshop at a homeschooling convention a couple of years later where a mom said everything written for children after 1965 is vile. That sounded about right to me. It was around then that the movement began to make kids' books look "like reality" instead of being idealistic.

I prefer my kids to have good ideals held up before them.

Not to say that everything written before '65 is acceptable. I love the movie African Queen, but I didn't read the book aloud to the kids--not up to our family standards. More graphic than the old movie.

Also, I had to disapprove most everything written before 1990 for children to educate them about Native Americans because the older books were full of prejudice and biased language.

Those are just two examples.

I refrained from reading any Harry Potter for years because I assumed it would be too "realistic" and not "idealistic" enough for me. It is, but I've allowed my kids to read it anyway. The magic and stuff doesn't bother me a bit--that's just like Grimms' and Perault's and everyone else's old fairy tales, which we've read to the kids all their lives. But the way teenagers treat each other and adults in that series is a bit too "modern" for my tastes. However, as my kids have gotten older and gone out of our house more, they know real teenagers and they know what our family standards are, so reading about kids like the ones they meet in public isn't going to start them acting that way themselves.

I also read Huck Finn and the Nate Hentoff book about it being banned to the kids, and we've discussed reading choices quite a bit.

Ramona

You're forgetting that most of those are for adults. I wouldn't recommend showing The Passion to young children either. My objection is not so much to crud per se (though I may find it personally objectionable), but rather putting it into a format that's meant to appeal to kids. There is zero benefit to exposing children to sex and violence for the purposes of promoting same, and I don't really care whether a handful of people request those books, the library shouldn't order them. A line obviously has to be drawn somewhere, and the issue is not really the line, but rather where to draw it.

FYI...
http://www.creationists.org/corporalpunishment.html

A light spanking is way less damaging to a child imho than either psychological punishment (silent treatment, for instance) or no punishment at all (child turns into an uncontrollable snot with no respect for you or anyone). It provides the best results with the least suffering. I know I probably won't agree with you on this, but I personally feel that people who don't use corporal punishment are causing their children serious long-term harm.

The brother of one of our friends was killed when he went motorcycle riding against his mom's express orders. If he'd had slightly more respect for his parents, he'd still be alive.

There is, as seekingmyLord says, a huge difference between a spanking and a random beating. One trains, the other makes things worse.

I've read many times that spanking and such is alright. Indeed I've seen people say it is called for or required for good parenting. "It was done to me, and it straightened me out." "It didn't hurt me none, in fact they shoulda hit me more." are some things I sometimes hear about this. I don't agree.

I don't favor punishment at all. I'm not trying to control my kids, I'm trying to get them to control themselves. I favor consequences. I favor rewards on the one hand along with positive reenforcement (which none of us get enough of IMO) and consequences, (preferably natural ones) on the other hand.

This has worked very well for my kids. They are great, and very well behaved. They are not that way because they fear me but because they know right from wrong due to having consequences for their actions that were either good or bad and which were consistent. Later in life, when I'm not there, they will make better choices than if I "ruled" them through fear and pain.

Corporeal punishment never stopped me from doing anything I wanted past the time of the actual punishment. I remember being spanked and thinking is this it? This won't stop me. I'll go right back to doing what I want to do, only this time they won't catch me. Is that really what you are seeking to create? It's NOT what I am.

When ultra controlled and punished kids get out on their own they are likely to do or try anything because you can't beat who they are inside out of them. You can only get them to suppress it until they have opportunity. This is one reason why college kids who go away to college often go "wild." That can lead to some heartbreaking results including death.

When they get a car, that too can lead to a sort of freedom along with not being watched in which bad choices can be made leading to injury and death.

I've seen people say that you should never spank in anger but calmly. I don't agree.

The only time one should get physical is when one has lost their temper IMO. If you can be calm it should NOT occur at all because you are the adult and you should be able to discern right from wrong. Hitting another person in any way but self defense is wrong in my belief system. The whole being calm and saying you are doing this from a loving place is total BS to me. Again, it makes me angry.

Of course people are going to do what they are going to do. I am not likely to be changing minds here. I know that.

I also know kids are spanked and beaten (yes, I make a distinction between the two) every day, and they have to figure out how to grow up as healthy as they can in spite of it.

Human beings have a remarkable ability to adapt and work for good. I believe most of us, freed of worries such as hunger and shelter will make the right choices. I also believe that kids given, "everything" except consistent enforced limits, are less likely to make the right choices.

Still, it is on each individual to make these choices right or wrong, they and the rest of us have to live with the results.