facebook-pixel

Letter: Banning a book while you are in the majority only starts a vicious cycle

FILE - In this Jan. 28, 2010, file photo, copies of J.D. Salinger's classic novel "The Catcher in the Rye" as well as his volume of short stories called "Nine Stories" are seen at the Orange Public Library in Orange, Ohio. (AP Photo/Amy Sancetta, File)

I read with interest all the hoopla about all the books being banned from our libraries. There are books about sexual orientation issues, books deemed too graphic for young minds and books that deal with racial themes.

I am sure there are books being banned for reasons I don’t know or even comprehend why they would be unacceptable. It made me laugh when I saw someone wanted the Bible banned. My first reaction was, “Touché.”

Growing up in the ‘70s, the only book I can remember being banned was “Catcher in the Rye.” Of course, we all read it because it was banned. I thought it was stupid and didn’t get it and never finished it. So much for banning a book to keep me from reading it.

Of course, “Playboy” was banned from our school library. I had to get those from underneath my dad’s bed. To read the articles, of course.

Remember, banning a book while you are in the majority, means the other side can ban a book they find objectionable (like the Bible) when they are in the majority.

Simple solution, don’t ban any books.

David T. Lancaster, Murray

Submit a letter to the editor