So, here we are again. The issue is whether or not school curricula should require minors to read books their parents consider horrifically violent and explicitly smutty. It appears the matter has been settled by a majority vote. In other words, democracy trumps liberty. In the broader sense, the right to freedom of worship has caved to tyranny of the majority. Had we honored the concept of the Constitutional Republic, we could merely ask if the free exercise of conscience could best be protected by compelling all to read the controversial book, or by just leaving it in the library for access by those whose consciences deemed it acceptable.

Advocates of compelling the smut argued it was difficult to find challenging reading material that did not contain smut. (I’m flashing back to some of these.) They also feared setting a precedent of honoring other objections, perhaps frivolous and ill-intended. No mention was made about the idea that violence on TV and in video games gives low-stability kids ideas for mass shootings, nor did they argue that the whole rating system for movies should be changed. That is probably because they knew the ratings were only a way to entice kids to buy tickets for the forbidden fruit. Then again, why should I suppose that anybody was thinking?