One man who challenged the Harry Potter books did so because he believed the spells in the book are actual curses that summon demons. My response to that “logic” is:
- Can you prove it?
- If these purported demons appear, isn’t your faith sufficient protection?
No, of course he can’t prove it, and one reason he can’t is that he doesn’t know how spells work, and for most people considering his charge, he’s going to need some evidence. Show us the demons.
Suppose he produces the evidence. Can his faith not protect him? Apparently he’s unsure.
Most book challenges sound about this cowardly and absurd. That is, rather than disseminating opposing information to give readers an alternative, people choose to take the offending book off the shelves if they can:
Do you remember a game show called “The Weakest Link”? Banning these books shows that because an individual says, “I don’t like them so we should remove them from the library so that nobody else can read them,” we say, “okay,” and demonstrate the weakest link system of decision making.
We can do better. If we can’t, we’ve let things go too far and the contry is now in the hands of people who can’t think and/or who are scared to think, much less engage in a dialogue about opposing ideas.
You can fight the weakest links by reading everything they don’t like and asking your friends to do the same.
Malcolm R. Campbell
Publisher: Thomas-Jacob Publishing