Critics say bans would hinder rights as proponents would impose their beliefs on others who don’t share their views

Summary

Rightwing groups across the US are driving a wave of legislation to restrict books in school and public libraries, targeting content deemed “sexually explicit” or “obscene,” often affecting LGBTQ+ and race-related titles.

Texas leads with 31 bills and 538 book bans in the 2023–24 school year.

Proposed laws, like Texas Senate Bill 13, shift book selection power from librarians to parent-led advisory boards.

Critics, including librarians and legal scholars, warn these efforts amount to censorship, risk violating First Amendment rights, and reduce access in underserved communities.

  • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    82·
    2 days ago

    Slavery has never been acceptable, and I would expect a “holy book” meant to be a model for morality, regardless of when it is written, to at the very least be ambivalent on the topic of owning other humans as property.

    Actually, that’s too generous. If I were to follow the teachings of a book, it would need to be explicitly anti-slavery. Something that would be particularly important in a time where slavery is “accepted and normal.” And really, a super fucking low bar.

    We’ve got 10 commandments. At least 2 of them are about Yahweh being jealous of other gods, and yet none of them are about slavery.

    Jesus could have easily said, “don’t own people as property,” and yet he didn’t.

    No, he actually specifically outlined rules for owning and punishing your slaves. He (more than, imo) tacitly approves of slavery.

    If you want to have this argument, you’re gonna lose.

    • abbadon420@lemm.ee
      61·
      2 days ago

      Slavery was very much and accepted socio economical practice in those days. The mentioning the bible does are often not reminiscent of the 18th century slavery we’re all familiar with. Slavery I’m those days was often a kind of servitude, for a couple years, tto pay off debt. The bible recognises that for what it is and tries to humanise slavery by saying things like to treat your slaves as your brother

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        31·
        1 day ago

        You should probably take a step back and realize you’re defending slavery. That’s gross. You should be ashamed.

        You can try to justify it all you want, but the fact is that it was just as unacceptable then as it is now, and an all-knowing, all-caring god should understand that no problem.

        Regardless of the socio- economic conditions.

        And yeah, it’s not like Jesus was well known for upsetting the socio-economic status quo or anything… It’s not like he fashioned his own whip to drive money changers from the temple.

        B b b but money changing in the temple was the accepted practice in those days!

        • abbadon420@lemm.ee
          21·
          1 day ago

          We are talking about the Roman era here, mate. The Romans conquered outside societies and enslaved them. Slavery in this context meant that these “foreigners” could earn Roman citizenship. There were some slaves that held higher esteem than some free citizens in the Roman Empire, most notably doctors.

          Slavery was not just whipping people to make them plow the land. It was a very complicated socioeconomical construct and it was very much a “normal” thing. In the late Roman era, slavery grew rampant (because it was profitable) and often children of poor, free citizens were kidnapped into slavery. But in the Roman high tides, around the time of Jezus, it was, for lack if a better word, a rather sophisticated process.

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome

    • AtariDump@lemmy.world
      2·
      2 days ago

      Slavery has never been acceptable, and I would expect a “holy book” the Constitution of the United States meant to be a model for morality government, regardless of when it is written, to at the very least be ambivalent on the topic of owning other humans as property.