Banned Books Week: And Tango Makes Three

I finished my two books for Banned Books Week earlier than I thought, so now I'll have more than one post in a day.  It's an Autumn miracle!


I read And Tango Makes Three and The Giver for Banned Books Week.  I'll start with And Tango Makes Three, and then I'll do a separate post on The Giver.

Photo courtesy of Goodreads.com

And Tango Makes Three is a children's picture book by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell, and is illustrated by Henry Cole.  It's a true story about two male penguins who loved each other and together they raised a baby penguin from egg to birth and beyond.  It was published in 2005 and has been on the American Library Association's Top Ten Most Frequently Challenged Books List for each year beginning with 2006, and every year it has been in the number one slot, except for 2009, when it fell to number two.  The reasons that this book has been challenged have been listed on ALA's website as "unsuited to age group," "sexism," "anti-ethnic," "religious viewpoint," "anti-family," and "homosexuality."  Let's take these one-by-one, shall we?  Oy, this is going to turn into one of my infamous soapbox rants.  


So we'll start off with "unsuited to age group."  I'm not sure what the exact target age is for this book, but it's a children's picture book, so we'll say, um, birth to 8 and be generous?  I mean, kids don't actually read until they're 4 or 5 (unless parents do that Baby Can Read thing, which is a topic for another post, I think), but parents read to them.  And although I don't really read anything other than board books to my two-year-old son (he tears up the pages otherwise), many parents read these books to kids at all early ages, even while they're in the womb.  And by the time kids are 7 or 8 they're on to chapter books, I think.  I'm not sure exactly how this goes.  Give me a few years and I'll see what happens with my own son.  But anyway, it's a book for kids.  And yes, I can see how sexuality is not a subject that you really want to teach your kids until they're older.  But you can teach them about love, right?  Kids are taught about boys and girls liking each other, and thinking the other is cute; all that stuff is taught without a thought at a young age.  All that simply has to be said to teach homosexuality at a young age is that some boys like boys and some girls like girls.  Lots of people talk about the horrors of children learning about homosexuality in schools at a young age, and they always seem to think that this kind of talk has to include information about sex itself.  Sex doesn't come into the teaching of heterosexuality at a young age, so why should it come into the conversation when talking about homosexuality?  Besides, this book says nothing about the reproductive cycle except that the male and female penguin couples had babies of their own and Roy and Silo (the two male penguins) didn't, so their keeper gave them an egg to care for when it couldn't be cared for by its own parents.  I don't think this book is unsuited for the age group at all.


Next, "sexism."  How in the world is this sexist?  No, really, someone read this book and tell me how it's sexist.  I really don't know how it could be considered sexist.


As for "anti-ethnic," I really don't know what they're going with here.  There were people of all colors illustrated in this book as going to the zoo to see the animals.  I mean, there was only one type of penguin in the book, chinstrap penguins, but surely these people aren't claiming that it was anti-ethnic because there was only one kind of penguin represented?  I really don't know what anti-ethnic means, either.  But I found a funny blog post while looking this up:  And Tango Makes Three: anti-ethnic penguins?  They don't seem to know what it means, either.


"Religious viewpoint" is the next reason that this book has been challenged.  Now, does that mean that the book has an offensive religious viewpoint, or that the person who is challenging the book is saying that it is offensive to their own religious viewpoint?  It has to be the latter, because this book has no mention of religion in it whatsoever.  So I guess this person is basically saying that it has homosexuality in it, which is against their religious viewpoint.  Newsflash, people.  It's a free country.  And freedom of religion is one of the major freedoms in America.  Freedom to be whichever religion you wish, or to have no religion at all.  Your religion does not make the rules of this country.  No religion does.  So therefore, a book that does not go along with your religious viewpoint isn't going to be banned for that reason.  Sorry.


Moving on to "anti-family."  I wrote a whole post on this a year ago, aptly called Soapbox Rant.  Basically I talked about how many politicians talk about "family values" as if their opponents, or people in the other political party (they're Republicans talking about Democrats, mostly) don't have any type of family values.  It's quite ridiculous.  Just because some people don't limit a "family" to a marriage of one man and one woman and their biological children doesn't mean they don't have a sense of what family is, and it definitely doesn't mean that they don't have morals.  And Tango Makes Three is all about family.  It's about a not-so-typical penguin family, but the overwhelming, blatant theme in the book is family.  So this reason for challenging the book does not make sense at all.


And finally, we have "homosexuality."  Yep.  They're homosexual penguins.  So this reason makes sense, but I still think it's wrong.  First of all, banning books is wrong.  Decide for yourself what you want to read to your children.  If you don't like it, don't read it, and don't let your kids read it.  Second of all, the fact that something contains homosexuality does not make it bad.  You disagree with homosexuality?  I think you're going to have to get over it, because it's not going away.

Deep breath, rant over.  And Tango Makes Three is a sweet story about family and love.  The illustrations are cute, and the story itself is warm and fuzzy.  The fact that it is a true story makes it all the more wonderful.  I, for one, think we need more books like this for children, and I will definitely be reading it to my son (once he gets over that whole tearing-book-pages thing).

Soapbox Rant - Morality

So have you all heard about the judge who posted the Ten Commandments on his wall, along with his own thoughts on morality?  If not, here's the link to the article I read:  http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/02/02/judges-ten-commandments-display-in-courtroom-ruled-unconstituti/?icid=maing|aim|dl4|sec3_lnk3|41080.  


I've seen some comments on it online, and mostly they speak about the separation of church and state, and how it is not in the U.S. Constitution (which is true).  This judge posted the Ten Commandments and his own notes on morality in the courtroom, and it was ruled unconstitutional.  I think it's one thing to put them in his own office, where he can look at them and be constantly reminded of his values and morals so that he will do the best he can to uphold the law.  But when he hung them where all who come into his courtroom can see, it basically is like saying, "If you're not Christian, you're amoral and you're wrong and I'm going to be biased against you."


Anyway, that whole thing isn't really what bothers me the most.  The thing that really got me is a part of one of his notes that he hung up along with the Commandments.  He stated, "Because morality is based on faith, there is no such thing as religious neutrality in law or morality."  Now this is what pushes my buttons.  Yes, I realize that, for many people, their own morality is based on faith.  But not all morality is based on faith.  


I believe in God.  I was raised Lutheran, but I'm more Agnostic.  A lot of things about organized religion don't make sense to me.  But I really can't believe that all we do when we die is simply turn to dust.  Therefore, I believe in a higher power and some type of afterlife.  However, I do not make choices because of those beliefs.  I choose to do the things that I do, to believe in the things that I believe in, simply because I think they are the right things to do.  I am kind to all people.  I am kind to animals.  I believe in things like equality and peace and selflessness simply because I think that it is the right thing to do.  I don't make the choices I make, or do the things that I do, because of an idea of an afterlife.  I don't do things because a book told me that some man thousands of years ago said that I should do it.


Look, I'm not trying to dog on religion, or anyone who bases their morality on their faith.  To each his own.  I'm not trying to make anyone mad or think that I think I'm better than someone else.  I don't think that way at all, and I'm not trying to upset anyone or offend anyone.  All I'm saying is that morality is not always based on religion.  Not for everyone.  And to say that all people who don't have faith, or don't believe in the Ten Commandments, are amoral is wrong.

Soapbox Rant - WBC Must Be Stopped; Write Every Day Challenge, Day #46

Alright, it's time for another one of Andrea's Soapbox Rants.  My friends Courtney and Holly suggested that I made this a weekly theme, like Soapbox Sundays.  I agree - but this topic is way too important to wait until Sunday.


But before I get up on my Soapbox, let's have one ray of light in this post - tomorrow I will be seeing Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1!!!!!!!  I am SO excited!


Now, down to it.  So I've talked before about Fred Phelps,  Reverend of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas (see my post The Mantis Connection: Love Conquers Hate: Write Every Day Challenge, Day #8).  He and his followers (i.e., his family) have been protesting events for years.  They spread the messages "God Hates Fags" and "God Hates America."  Their delusional beliefs not only include the idea that homosexuals are going to hell (which I know is still a common belief and is not held only by the members of this church but by many Americans - I have also discussed this in the same post mentioned above), but that all Americans are going to hell.  (And they're American, but I guess they think that they're exempt from this.)  They have protested funerals of homosexuals such as Matthew Shepard (if you don't know about this story, go here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard.  I know Wikipedia isn't the most reliable source, but this page does give a good overview), and also have been protesting the funerals of straight members of the military, because, as I understand it, the military allows gays to serve, and because the military uses IEDs, and they hate IEDs because someone planted one in their church.


First of all, let me just say, for those of you who haven't read my previous articles, that I am one of the biggest advocates for gay rights that I know.  I don't think that gay people are going to hell.  I don't think that being gay is a choice.  I don't think that gay people are any different from straight people.  I think we are all human, and we are all equal.  I also have a lot of problems with organized religion.  I believe in God, but I don't agree with a lot of what is taught in churches.  That's another story, and I am not trying to force my beliefs on anyone.  But that is what Phelps and his family are trying to do.  They are trying to force their twisted, radical, ignorant views on everyone else.


And now they're targeting my home state.  And even worse than that, they're targeting our children.


So this past Saturday, Westboro Baptist Church picketed at the funeral of Army Sergeant Jason James McCluskey in McAlester, Oklahoma.  However, while there were about six or so protesters, police said that there were over a thousand people there who were against the Westboro Baptist Church.  The church members left, and found that their tires were slashed.  They then found that most people in the town were unwilling to help them.  They ended up having a company tow them to a Wal-Mart outside of town.  (Once again, this is how I understand the story.  For an official report from an Oklahoma news station, go here:  http://www.koco.com/news/25790129/detail.html.)  


But now it's gone even farther.  Phelps and his family now have decided that, in revenge for their slashed van tires, they are going to protest the funerals of Oklahoma children.  Here is a link to this story from the same news station:  http://www.koco.com/news/25833473/detail.html.  


I personally believe highly in the freedom of speech.  I also believe highly in the freedom of religion.  And the members of this church have been protected by those freedoms.  But this is just wrong.  It was wrong when they picketed Matthew Shepard's funeral.  It was wrong when they picketed at my brother's graduation because one of the students (not my brother) who was graduating was an openly gay male who started a Gay-Straight group at the school.  It was wrong when they picketed the funerals of straight military members, simply because the WBC doesn't support the military.  (Oh, and I guess I've found the loophole in my last post - I said that everyone in America supports the troops even if they don't support the war.  These wackos don't.  They don't even support America.)  And it is wrong to protest the funerals of innocent children.  It is wrong to protest funerals, period.


And it was wrong of the people in McAlester to slash their tires.  Violence is never the answer.  I know this was a passive-aggressive form of violence, but it was violence none the less.  As one of Phelps' own children - a child of his who is no longer in contact with the rest of her family, and does not support their beliefs - said in the documentary Fall from Grace, the best thing to do when you see them is to ignore them.  I know this is extremely hard, and I know that I would want to shout lots of things at these people if I saw them.  But as the same child said, these people are pros at this.  They have been doing it for something like 15 years now.  They've heard every retort, every comment that you can think of to say to them.  They know exactly how to respond when you say something to them.  And that's what they want.  They want you to yell at them.  They want you to say something so that they can refute it with their twisted logic.  They want the attention.  So the best thing to do, and the hardest thing to do, is to ignore it.  The media should be ignoring them.  I shouldn't even be writing this post.


But the problem is, that although these people have the freedom of speech, there is something wrong with the fact that we let people purposefully hurt someone else.  No, they are not physically hurting other people.  But they are verbally abusing them.  Their protests at funerals are nothing but the loud, verbal abuse of the people who are being buried, and the people who love them.  I cannot imagine being at a funeral for someone I love, and to look up and see and hear people saying that God hated my friend or family member who has just died, and that that person is going to hell.  No, I'm sorry.  Eff you.  God says not to judge.  He's the one who is going to judge us.  And you can believe that I'm wrong all day.  You can believe that homosexuality is wrong.  It's your right.  But it is wrong for someone to be able to abuse the right to a freedom of speech to throw hateful words at someone who is grieving.  


It all goes back to this bullying epidemic.  Our country is full of bullying.  It's not just in high schools and junior highs.  People bully others simply by saying that someone else is wrong because of their race, their religion, their sexuality, etc.  Look at the recent political elections.  Politicians bullying each other in their television and radio ads, during debates, during interviews.  When has it become so accepted to be so hurtful towards others?  And we allow it, left and right.  It has become the norm.


And that is what these people, these supposed followers of Christ, are doing.  They are bullying, are verbally abusing people that have never done anything to them.  People who simply want to pay their last respects to a loved one.  And they are verbally abusing these people who have died, who often had nothing to do with the things that the WBC members don't agree with.


Something has to be done.  I am tired of these people getting away with this, simply because they have the right to freedom of speech.  Something needs to change.  And by God, if nothing does change, you guys may just see me turn into a politician.  Especially if Sarah Palin runs for and gets elected as President in 2012.  That's a whole different story.  But I can tell you one thing, if things keep going the way they're going, America definitely is going to hell in a hand basket.  But not for the reasons those WBC wackos think.  They're the reason.  Not the other way around.

Veterans' Day and Facebook Chain Posts; Write Every Day Challenge, Day #39

Okay, this is where I might lose a few followers.  But I'm in such an irritated mood right now, I don't really care.  (No, wait.  I care.  Please don't stop following me.  Please still be my friend.  I'm just irritated and I have to vent.  I do not mean anything against any of my followers, because as far as I know, none of you have participated in these Chain Posts.  I have my opinions; everyone has their own.  And I truly apologize to my friends if the following statements make you mad.  I am not trying to be mean.  I am just venting.  We're still friends, right? ;) )


Today is Veterans' Day.  And I am all about honoring the Veterans, as well as all of our current troops here in the US or abroad.  But I have to get on my soap box.


I am a huge Facebook fanatic.  I spend a lot of time every day looking at my News Feed.  Pathetic, maybe, but that's not the point here.  The point is that I always see people posting these statements about supposed "taboo" subjects that they want people to re-post.  You've all seen them.  They're like, "Babies are a miracle.  Re-post this if you have ever had a baby, lost a baby, had to give a baby up" blah blah blah.  Okay, I've had a baby.  I've never had to give one up and I have never had to have an abortion but I think I still fall under this category.  So you've got me interested in your post.  Then it says something like "Most people won't post this because losing a baby is still a taboo subject."  Uh, really?  I know abortion is a taboo subject, and some people might not agree with putting a baby up for adoption, but are miscarriages considered taboo?  Well, maybe, but that's still not my point.  My point is that whoever (whomever? I'm not sure about this grammatical rule) wrote this post originally had the audacity to claim that they were better than others because they wrote this post, and that the tiny percentage of people who re-posted this are better than the others who chose NOT to re-post.  Well, first of all, when you exclude people in your regulations as to who is to re-post ("Re-post if you have ever had a baby, lost a baby, etc." - this particular example did not include people who have never had children to the list of those who should re-post), that means that a LOT of people won't re-post.  Then to say that "most people won't re-post this because it's such a taboo subject" is like saying "Hey, you there, reading my post.  If you don't re-post this, you're an ass and you have no feelings."  


Excuse me, but I find this ridiculous.  First of all, the audacity of this statement makes me absolutely not want to re-post.  Also, I've never liked Chain Letters.  And that's what these are.  Facebook Chain Posts.  They've simply changed "Mail this to 10 friends or you'll have bad luck" to "Re-post this or everyone will know what a heartless asshole you are."  


Okay, with that off my chest (sigh), I move on to the posts about Veterans and our troops.  Often these are also Chain Posts, but a little different.  This is one that I saw today:

"A Combat Veteran is someone, who at one point in their life, wrote a blank check payable to the United States of America for an amount up to, and including, their life.  Regardless of personal political views, that is an honor and a sacrifice.  There are way too many people in this country who no longer remember that fact.  In honor of Veterans' Day, re-post this if you know and/or love a Veteran!"

Alright.  So this one is a bit different than the "taboo subject" ones.  But it still has that "You're an asshole if you don't re-post this" vibe about it.  I like the first sentence.  It's well-written and poignant.  But then we get to the next sentence.  "Regardless of personal political views, that is an honor and a sacrifice."  Yes, this is true.  But why do politics need to be mentioned here?  What they're trying to say here is that we all should support the troops, regardless of our political affiliation.  My point is that we all DO support the troops, regardless of our political affiliation.  Politics have nothing to do with it.  We all recognize that these men and women risk their lives for our freedoms every day.  That many lose their lives for it.  I am perfectly aware that thousands and thousands of soldiers have lost their lives so that I am free to sit here and write this little post.  I am not trying to dishonor them, or their fellow troops that are still alive, or their families.  I support them 100%.  I could not do what they do, and I have the highest respect for them.  And this is my point.  EVERYONE does.  Have you ever met an American in your life that didn't support the troops?  Sure, you may have met someone who didn't support the current war, but they always support the troops.  Every single one of them supports the troops.  


Yes, I agree that our brothers and sisters in the service deserve a better life while serving and when they return.  I saw Oprah.  I know that thousands of our female (and male) veterans are homeless.  This is ridiculous.  They deserve to be paid as well as many of the celebrities and athletes out there.  But my point is that these posts, while trying to honor the men and women in our armed services, simply make you feel like an asshole if you don't re-post.  Oh, and don't think that I don't know that when they say "Regardless of personal political views, that is an honor and a sacrifice.  There are way too many people in this country who no longer remember that fact" they are talking about Democrats.  Many Republicans seem to think that, because many Democrats do not support the war in Iraq or the War on Terrorism that they have forgotten about our troops and that they don't support them.  My point is that this is simply NOT TRUE.  We all support our troops, Republicans and Democrats.  Therefore the Chain Post's implication that we SHOULD all support the troops, "regardless of personal political views," is unnecessary.  You don't need to say that we "should" do something when we all do it already.  And I simply do not agree with the statement that "there are way too many people in this country who no longer remember that fact."  This is absurd.  Like I said above, how many people have you met in your lifetime that outwardly say that they do not support the troops?  (Remember, I'm talking about the troops, not the war.)


Okay, so obviously I'm not going to re-post this because 1) it's a Chain Post, 2) it gets its kicks making others seem like heartless asses, and 3) it's simply incorrect.


The posts I've seen today that I do like, however:

• "Thank you to all that are/have served our country."  See.  Short and sweet, no blame or derision.  Just a simple thank you.
• "Remembering those who have served."  Again, short and sweet and to the point.
• "Thankful for all the veterans..."  Again.  Thankful.
• "Happy Veterans' Day.  Thank you so much to all those who serve and have served our country."  See a pattern?
• "[Person's name] is so thankful to every man and woman who has served our country.  Happy Veterans' Day to you! :)"
• "Thank you to all who have served and are serving in the military.  God bless you and your families!"

These people, some of which are Republican, some of which are Democrat, have got it right.  They thank the men and women who have served their country, and they did not feel the need to re-post a Chain Post, nor did they feel the need to make others feel wrong or heartless because they supposedly don't support the troops.  Once again, this is wrong.  Everyone supports the troops.  Just because someone doesn't support the war doesn't mean they don't support the troops.

And, in conclusion, I just want to say something to the troops.  Thank you.  Thank each and every one of you for what you have done, what you are doing, what you will do.  You are all braver than I will ever be.  You are more selfless than I will ever be.  It is because of you that I am able to make this ridiculous post.  It is because of you that I am able to have these crazy opinions and spout them off whenever I want to.  It is because of you that we have things like Facebook.  It is because of you that I have friends who, regardless if they agree with me or not, will still be my friends because they realize that I have my opinions and that I mean no disrespect towards anyone.  Um, maybe that's a stretch.  But in all honesty, please believe me, troops.  I support you.  And I really believe that everyone in the US is behind you, even if they do not support the war.

And truly, friends, I am simply venting.  I do not hate Republicans or even people who re-post Chain Posts.  I do not hate anyone.  I just don't like those Chain Posts.  And I'm sorry if I offended anyone.

Soapbox Rant

So my challenge kind of fell by the wayside this Labor Day weekend. Instead of giving up, I'm just going to pick back up where I left off. Write Every Day.

I think I may get up on my soapbox for a minute. I'm really tired of all the hatred in this country these days. I realize there were times in the history of the United States where there was more hatred floating around, but I feel like we have evolved, learned, and become a better country. So why all the hatred?

All these people speak of "family values." Here's the problem: not everyone has the same definition of family. I have this old, 1974 edition of The Merriam-Webster Dictionary that used to be my mom's, which I use often. Here's the definition of family found there:

fam•i•ly \'fam-(ə-)lē\ n, pl -lies 1: a group of persons of common ancestry: CLAN 2: a group of individuals living under one roof and under one head: HOUSEHOLD 3: a social group composed of parents and their children 4: a group of related persons, lower animals or plants; also : a group of things having common characteristics

So, yes, this is a major definition of family. But it seems like, these days, most people automatically think of a family unit comprised of a mother and a father and children. But the thing is, that is only one type of family unit. There are families comprised of divorced parents, families where one or both of the divorced parents have remarried, families where there is only one parent (whether by neglect on one parent's side or by death), and blended families with children from each previous marriage. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. There are families with adopted children and foster children. There are families of married couples with no children. There are extended families, grandparents who move in with their adult children, grandparents or aunts or uncles that take care of the children. Cousins living in the same house. Children who have had both parents die, who are living with people who are not blood relatives, but godparents or friends of their parents, whom they had maybe never met but are now family. And then there are the controversial ones: the unwed mothers and unmarried couples living together with or without children, couples of mixed races, and the homosexual couples with or without children. I'm sure I've forgotten someone.

Another way to look at it is to think of yourself. How did you define your family as you've grown? As a baby, most likely your only family was you, your parents and your siblings. Maybe a few close grandparents or other family. As you got older, your aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, etc. came into the mix. You may have lost a family member or two or more. Then as you become a young adult, you may view your family as separate from you as you venture out on your own. Your parents may become extended family, especially if you find a spouse or partner. If you have children, you now become the adult in the family unit, and your whole perspective of family may change. As your own children grow and find their own spouses and have their own children, your view of family may change even more. If you do not have any children, grandchildren, etc., your view of family may stay the same as it was when you were a child, might include a spouse or partner, or it might simply be just you.

Then there are the changing roles of everyone in the family. You start out being a child, a sister, a brother, a niece, a nephew, a cousin, a grandchild. You may grow to be an aunt, an uncle, a mother, a father, a grandparent, a great aunt, a great uncle. Within those roles, you are expected to act a different way. And these expectations change with the times. Mothers were, until quite recently (and in some places, still are), expected to do all of the housework, do the child rearing, and abstain from working outside the home. I am a stay-at-home mom, but I think that I am a minority in that respect.

Then you have different cultures that come into play.

My point is, when people realize that every family unit is different, and that everyone views family differently, and that the roles of family are always changing, you can't expect everyone's "family values" to be the same. Where I live, though, it seems like this term means putting family and Christian faith first. It means that if you have "family values," you are pro-life and conservative and a Christian. Now, I know this is a generalization and that not everyone may feel this way. But it seems to me that this is what politicians, at least in my state and a few nearby, mean when they say "family values." It's like saying that you don't value your family if you don't agree with these viewpoints. They speak of morality, and I think they also don't understand that everyone has different morals, along with different "family values." Yes, we all know that murder is bad. Yes, we all know that slavery is wrong. Yes, we've all been taught the golden rule. But I also thought that, at least in America, we've kind of come to the conclusion that hate is wrong. That prejudice is wrong. That all men (and women) are created equal.

I have a son, and I plan on raising him right. Or what I think is right, which, in my state, might be considered wrong. I will raise him to be kind to his fellow humans. I will teach him to respect his elders, to be polite, and to not hurt anyone. I will raise him to be kind to animals. I will raise him to try to put himself into the shoes of others, to try and understand why people do the things that they do, rather than condemning their actions. I will raise him to understand that men and women are equal. That no one is superior to anyone else, whether you are white, black, brown, American, Mexican, British, Iraqi, Chinese, Korean, Pakistani, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Agnostic, Atheist, tall, short, thin, fat, pretty, ugly, straight, gay, bisexual, transsexual, rich, poor, male, female, Republican, or Democrat. He will learn that we are all human. We are all equal, and, in America, we all have the same rights and should all have the same opportunities. I will teach him, that, above all else, kindness is the highest virtue. I will not teach him to be intolerant. I will not teach him to hate.