© Wilder Publications 2008
This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.
The book involved? A reprint of The Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation. The language is apparently boilerplate from the publisher, and appears on (among other things) The Wind in the Willows, The Federalist Papers, Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil (good idea, there, especially as to “interpersonal relations,” though have views really changed so much since then?), and Marx & Engels’ Manifesto of the Communist Party. Thanks for the pointer to Walter Olson (Cato@Liberty), and to Cory Andrews.
mls says:
Books written today, on the other hand, reflect eternal truth as revealed by Oprah.
May 6, 2010, 4:40 pmOpenVolokh says:
Actually, this is really good advice. Consider section 2 of the 14 amendment:
I think such discussions would actually be quite productive and interesting. I don’t know if they would need to occur BEFORE reading such a work, though.
May 6, 2010, 4:42 pmh2u says:
Peace be upon her. ;)
May 6, 2010, 4:44 pmCrunchy Frog says:
thread winner, on the very first post.
May 6, 2010, 4:45 pmChris Travers says:
So the Constitution is to be relegated to the classic literature department?
Oh, how I wish our values were the same as those portrayed in the Odyssey or the I Ching…..
What does this say about St John of the Cross’s “The Dark Night of the Soul?”
What do you bet this also appears in their reprint of “The Jefferson Bible?”
May 6, 2010, 4:45 pmChris A. says:
Wilder’s 2007 publication of G.K. Chesterton’s Heretics has a virtually identical disclaimer, and this for one of the only journalists of his day to oppose eugenics.
May 6, 2010, 4:46 pmc.s.b. says:
To be fair, the part about “three fifths of all other Persons,” modified by the 14th Amendment but presumably still printed, would also probably warrant some discussion.
May 6, 2010, 4:48 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
They know this, how?
May 6, 2010, 4:49 pmAnonsters says:
To be fair, though, that bit is undoubtedly true.
May 6, 2010, 4:52 pmAngus says:
“all men are created equal” is another good example. At the time, they really did mean it to exclude women, and even then only to include some men but not others (particularly Indians and slaves).
That is a very good discussion to promote, among others, about those founding documents. However, having the discussion before reading them is utterly silly.
May 6, 2010, 4:59 pmcityduck says:
Isn’t that self-evident?
May 6, 2010, 5:02 pmarch1 says:
1) Why the focus on values to the exclusion of (say) knowledge or technology, each of which has changed hugely?
May 6, 2010, 5:03 pm2) Using today as the benchmark seems either inappropriately chronocentric (we’re now at an ideal end state, for some def’n of “we”) or disappointingly cynical (ok we’ve a ways to go, but it’s hopeless to expect parents/children to consider what might still be askew).
3) The warning might even be affixed to works written within the parents’ lifetime (of course with parent and child roles reversed:-)
Constantin says:
Does Wilder print the Koran?
May 6, 2010, 5:07 pmrachel says:
Much of what’s printed today is so yesterday tomorrow. And, yet, “Today’s Values” is advertised on signage over dusty bargain book bins.
May 6, 2010, 5:08 pmTweets that mention Quite a Warning Label: (Eugene Volokh) © Wilder Publications 2008 This book is a product of… -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Moshe Glickman, The Volokh Conspirac. The Volokh Conspirac said: Quite a Warning Label: (Eugene Volokh) © Wilder Publications 2008 This book is a product of… http://goo.gl/fb/GhkvA [...]
May 6, 2010, 5:15 pmChris Travers says:
This is especially true of the porn reviews in Oprah Magazine a while back….
May 6, 2010, 5:23 pmarthur says:
“Daddy, what’s manly firmness?”
For the Declaration of Independence this is a useful warning.
May 6, 2010, 5:31 pmDjDiverDan says:
Frankly, the advice that parents discuss the issues with their children is very good advice for nearly any literature, and is far preferable to the lazy out of simply banning the book. I’ve always thought that Huckleberry Finn was a classic children’s book, and really disappointed to find that a great many school districts (operating under intense political pressure) have gone so far as to ban the book from their libraries because of its repeated use of the “N Word” – of course, anyone who reads Huckleberry Finn with any care can see that Twain was just using the vernacular of the period, and the book was in fact an indictment of slavery in particular and racism in general. With a little parental involvement, reading Huckleberry Finn can teach some great lessons, both as to historical norms and interracial relationships. Much better than simply banning the book because some parents can’t get past the language used.
May 6, 2010, 5:33 pmRandy says:
Amen, DiverDan! I recall many years ago when a production in Canada was proposed of the musical classic Showboat. It was picketed by idiots who thought it was racist.
Misry’s comin’ around, I tells ya.
May 6, 2010, 5:37 pmSam says:
That same warning appears on the Sesame Street Old School DVDs with episodes from the early run of the show. Along with the episodes educational value being different and that they are more for entertainment purposes.
Did we start learning to count differently?
May 6, 2010, 5:54 pmChris Travers says:
Not that I could see, but they do print “The Jefferson Bible.”
May 6, 2010, 6:05 pmKevin R says:
I don’t know; I seem to remember in college always having to buy new editions of math textbooks. (And I’m not talking about anything esoteric, I’m talking about introductory calculus.) Surely the only explanation is that counting (/derivatives/Taylor series) are different today.
May 6, 2010, 6:10 pmWaste93 says:
I picked up some Looney Toons DVD’s for my son. A similar disclaimer is at the beginning of the DVD’s. How the cartoon use racial and sexual stereotypes that are wrong now and wrong when they were made. When did we become over sensitized and afraid to be offended?
May 6, 2010, 6:39 pmMike McDougal says:
The U.S. is probably politically incapable of creating a new Constitution.
May 6, 2010, 6:42 pmray_g says:
Reading the label, and attempting to interpret the mind set of the writer of the label (my alter ego is Nino the Mind Boggler), it seems like this should be slapped onto any book published before, say, 1980. I mean, it sure seems like “Coffee, Tea or Me” doesn’t reflect the gender or sexual values of our time. Wait..considering some of the current popular female celebrities, maybe it does. I can’t keep up with this stuff.
May 6, 2010, 7:10 pmgullyborg says:
I would add the following warning:
“DANGER! Anyone who reads this WILL DIE!”
Because… eventually…
May 6, 2010, 7:20 pmbellisaurius says:
My head asplode.
Nah. Once I get past the obvious implication that they were wrong when they wrote these things (that I feel personally, which is of course an attribution fallacy), I guess the actual point of the exact words is to consider the possibility of discussion about the morals of different times, and the ability for a parent to say either “you have to judge people by the standards of their own times”, or “sometimes people realize that things are wrong after a while, and they change them”.
Or, tell the “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.” and a discussion of how we have to use our own judgment in the end, which is probably the most important lesson.
May 6, 2010, 7:24 pmr gould-saltman says:
Since it seems to be boilerplate, and since Wilder seems to have a huge assortment of stuff in print to which they’ve attached it, can’t say it’s all that troubling.
That they’ve pasted it on the Constitution or DoI is a little odd.
On the other hand, since they’ve got Nietzsche in print, it’s not all that odd that they might want to have a disclaimer in place for when little Johnny comes home and says “Go you among women? Forget not the whip!” to his mother and sisters, and then says “I read it in school!”.
They’ve got a bunch of 18th and 19th Century stuff in their catalog; the occurrence of the “n-word” in contexts which are NOT, unlike Twain, obviously satirical could be a problem, too (it turns up, among places where it surprised me when I saw it for the first time, in “un-revised” Gilbert and Sullivan…) Ditto with “Chinamen” and “wogs”…
It occurs to me that Wilder simply didn’t want to hire someone to READ all the stuff they’re printing word-for-word, looking for potentially offensive language; this goes some way to solving the potential complaints from parents without incurring that expense.
May 6, 2010, 7:33 pmHoward Gilbert says:
Parents who discover their young impressionable children reading Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil should certainly discuss these matters. Perhaps their children will explain a few things to the parents who, statistically speaking, were probably in the living room watching American Idol.
May 6, 2010, 7:52 pmys says:
In Soviet Russia there was no need for such nonsense. The government simply prohibited periodicals and publications on socio-political topics that were older than a certain threshold. For good measure, it also required to alter no-longer PC material that was still in circulation, like encyclopedias. And trust me, people obeyed.
May 6, 2010, 7:57 pmys says:
On the other hand, in democratic Germany, the government needs to put disclaimers, but how! In the old imperial town of Speyer, where four holy emperors and four German kings are buried in the 1000-year old cathedral, there is a modest marble monument in the center of the town. It has the following inscription, carved in marble: “Deutschland muss leben, auch wenn wir sterben muessen” (Germany must live, even if we have to die [for it]). The monument was erected in 1920s to commemorate WWI. A smaller bronze plaque on its side reads: “The views expressed here reflect the thinking of those times and not those of the town council”
May 6, 2010, 8:07 pmAlbatross says:
I kind of like the idea of warning labels on books. Now if they just had a few that warned there was porn inside …….
May 6, 2010, 8:33 pmThe Unbeliever says:
And spoil the surprise?
May 6, 2010, 8:55 pmERH says:
Well it is part of the great books series.
May 6, 2010, 8:59 pmLior says:
By the way, did anyone look at the copyright statement on the same page of the book?
This is also “boilerplate” from the publisher. Is the making of false legal statements actionable?
May 6, 2010, 9:09 pmrmd says:
To avoid the surprise. Of there not being any.
May 6, 2010, 9:21 pmAngus says:
Specific arrangements and edits of documents (Wilder puts notes in the text of the Constitution indicating changes made later by amendment) can be copyrighted. It’s actually pretty standard practice.
May 6, 2010, 9:34 pmchris says:
What’s the big deal? This is the free market in action. Is the sky really falling? Is the end really nigh?
May 6, 2010, 10:57 pmteaandbonbons says:
I saw this “warning” several months ago when I intended to purchase “The Federalist Papers” on Amazon. I noticed it and was appalled by it. I decided not to purchase the Wilder version, but chose another publisher instead.
a) If any child were to read the book, that would first of all be a miracle.
b) If any child were intelligent or curious enough to read the book, it’s likely s/he is also intelligent enough to figure out this was written in “the olden days” when things were different. A naturally curious child would ask lots of questions of his own.
c) The most likely readers of this material, adults, would also be intelligent enough to figure out that times have changed since the 18th century. The warning is unnecessary and insulting; moreover, it suggests that the material is somehow subversive or offensive.
And if you are offended by our Constitution and founding documents, then you are a sorry bastard and probably can’t be helped.
May 6, 2010, 11:06 pmChris Travers says:
Probably not.
First of all, specific edits and arrangements are subject to copyright provided that they reach a certain de minimis level of expressive content. The rules on this are not perfectly clear. It’s quite possible Wilder at least believes they hold the copyright to this edition and it’s a legitimate copyright. It’s also entirely possible they are wrong. I am not entirely sure you’d know until it goes to court.
In some cases the rules are clear. If, for example, I update the spellings to Contemporary Standard American English, that is probably not subject to copyright because all I have is a non-literal copy. If I further correct literal errors or other purely functional elements, that is still not subject to copyright. On the other hand, if I add footnotes explaining the content, adding references to other commentary, etc. that would seem to be copyright-worthy if enough of them exist.
On the other hand, they are unclear in others. Courts have occasionally surprised me with rulings based on de minimis expression…. (Lexmark v. Static Control is a good example, holding that certain code in printer cartridges did not meet de minimis requirements for copyright protection.)
However, if I copy your updated spellings into my book when I quote a passage, unless your expressive changes enter into my work, I don’t think you’d have a valid claim against me.
IANAL, but I know enough to know this area is VERY fact-centric, and also that courts can be somewhat unpredictable here.
May 7, 2010, 12:20 amLarryA says:
“Daddy, does this part mean I can have a BB gun for Christmas?”
May 7, 2010, 12:36 amAlan K. Henderson says:
That “boilerplate” looks like a Scott Ott prank.
May 7, 2010, 12:44 amKen Arromdee says:
That’s not boilerplate, though, and it’s not on every cartoon either. There actually are cartoons that have bad enough stereotypes that they really are offensive by modern standards even to people who don’t make a habit of being easily offended. And they shouldn’t be shown to kids as normal entertainment any more than Birth of a Nation should be shown as normal entertainment.
May 7, 2010, 1:11 amDougInSanDiego says:
Well, yes, mls –
because nowadays we are all progressive and whatnot, and being transformed into higher beings are equipped to preach correctly – unlike the barbarians of any age past.
May 7, 2010, 3:01 amChris Hallquist says:
I had a similar thought, but about the Bible. I actually assumed that’s what this post was about when I read the warning label. I say atheists steal that warning label, make a sticker out of it, and put it on all the Gideon Bibles in hotels.
May 7, 2010, 3:06 amMatej says:
A small quibble, but having lived in a communist country just long enough to become slightly acquainted with the authors, the second was not a Mr Engel but one Friedrich Engels (note the s and the placement of the apostrophe).
[D'oh! I knew that, but mistyped; thanks for the note -- just corrected the post. -EV]
May 7, 2010, 3:20 amEugene Volokh says:
chris: What’s the big deal justifying your posting your comment? My post, and the comments to it, is the free market of ideas in action. Is the sky really falling? Is the end really nigh?
May 7, 2010, 9:58 amInstapundit » Blog Archive » SLAPPING A PARENTAL-WARMING LABEL on the Constitution and Declaration of Independence? Good grief…. says:
[...] A PARENTAL-WARMING LABEL on the Constitution and Declaration of Independence? Good [...]
May 7, 2010, 10:13 amSeamus says:
So the Germans are now ashamed of a monument that basically says for Germany what Lincoln said about the United States, when he praised those who “gave their lives that that nation might live.” Wow. Maybe it was a good idea to cut their balls off the way we did in 1945, but frankly, I find it a little embarrassing to see such a nation of eunuchs running making a virtue of ballslessness.
May 7, 2010, 10:22 amcharles austin says:
The never ending hubris displayed by folks who think we are so much smarter and in control today than everyone who came before us never ceases to depress me. We have better technology, that’s about it.
May 7, 2010, 10:28 amNotAsSmartAsTheyThink says:
Can Wilder put a warning label on Liberal legislation passed since FDR?
May 7, 2010, 10:43 amDavid Boone says:
I grew up in the 50′s. Part of my education included those subversive Looney Tunes cartoons. Guess that explains my racist tea party attitudes. I seriously doubt most kids of that era, took that politically incorrect stuff to heart. All I can tell you is that it was genuinely funny and loopy, which is more than I can say of modern humor.
May 7, 2010, 10:47 amJoe T. Guest says:
Damn your miserable stomach, Travers.
May 7, 2010, 10:52 amRichard Nieporent says:
Thank goodness we now live in the best of all possible worlds. Where did Wilder get the idea that they are supposed to be our arbiter of values? Just publish the material and let the buyers decide what they think about it.
May 7, 2010, 11:13 amHoratius says:
This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work. In particular, regarding interpersonal relations, and despite the actions of the personages in this book, today you are expected to do as those in Government tell you. Parents may want to discuss this with their children, explaining how some groups may attack them if they do otherwise, and that it is best to not make a fuss, because it’s all for the common good anyway…
May 7, 2010, 11:32 amReggie1971 says:
You would think the miserable little people who foist this politically correct left wing stupidity upon us would considering applying for citizenship elsewhere. They obviously hate America, but just won’t admit it. I guess they stay to afford themselves the chance to destroy it from within.
May 7, 2010, 11:33 amBlake says:
Rachel, that is coffee on the monitor comedy gold.
Brilliant.
May 7, 2010, 11:48 amDwight says:
I don’t know about smarter and more in control, but having women vote, slavery abolished, and minorities voting are not small things. No, all our problems are not solved, but we have come down a road that we were right in taking.
May 7, 2010, 11:55 amThat having been said, we may need a new 3/5th Amendment which would give representative credit for a state’s population of illegal aliens.
willis says:
I think the 14th amendment arose as a result of those discussions. Are you suggesting we reconsider the amendment or are you suggesting we rekindle the discussions to inflame a little hostility and guilt-tripping that comes in so handy for manipulating whites?
May 7, 2010, 11:59 amLockestep says:
So I guess “Bugs Nips the Nips” is right out, then.
May 7, 2010, 12:02 pmMike H. says:
The non-Wilder Constitution.
May 7, 2010, 12:09 pmWuzzagrunt says:
May 7, 2010, 12:27 pmChris Travers says:
Coming back to this, I think there’s something really disjoint about the copyright statement and disclaimer.
Wilder is obviously stating that they own the copyrights to a version of the work that they edited, adding expressive content, which was copyright as of 2008 (two years ago), when they registered the copyright for THEIR work (which includes plenty of elements of an older public domain work).
They then claim that the book is a product of it’s time. Which book? The book that was copyrighted? What’s changed in the last two years? Wow, values change fast……
May 7, 2010, 12:29 pmmarcus says:
I do not deny the value of the expansion of the franchise, but methinks the founding fathers had one concept that we might consider readopting. Only those that paid taxes voted.
May 7, 2010, 12:40 pmquasimodo says:
Would today’s parents be able to explain why 3/5 was much better for the slaves than 1, and 1/4 much better than 3/5 and 0 best of all?
Not very many would, I think.
May 7, 2010, 12:41 pmMaureen says:
Re: “all men are created equal”
No, Jefferson really did mean “all men” as “all humans”. He was referring to natural law and to the Biblical creation story.
The Constitution does spend a lot of time defining that there wasn’t equality of American legal status when it came to natural-born Americans and foreign-born ones; property owners and non-property owners; and older people and younger people. So it’s not surprising (though unjust, as it happens) to draw a line between the legal status of men and women, and of slaves and freemen. We do make all sorts of distinctions in law, always; the trick is only to make just distinctions.
May 7, 2010, 1:06 pmic says:
quasimodo says: Would today’s parents be able to explain why 3/5 was much better for the slaves than 1, and 1/4 much better than 3/5 and 0 best of all?
Trick question. Answer: No, today’s parents don’t know nothin’ about no funny numbers with a “/”.
May 7, 2010, 1:09 pmJAL says:
Nah. They’d have various committees and entities (the Apollo Group? SEIU, ACORN in its new iteration…) throw the stuff in a blender, print out a couple thousand pages, and put it up for a vote. (Nobody cares what it might say.)
The President would give away his first born (in wedlock and wanted) grandchild to some sucker representative to bring in the hold out state and bingo!
There ya’ go.
May 7, 2010, 1:22 pmAssistant Village Idiot says:
It would be even more interesting in reverse: “This book is a product of our time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written in any other era. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed over time before allowing them to read this new work.”
Chronocentrism is a more common type of dangerous thought.
May 7, 2010, 1:39 pmSpitzer says:
At least with respect to the Constitution, the publisher is clearly wrong: if we have a Living Constitution, then the document must reflect the same values today as our own values (even if those pesky words get in the way). Now, if the publisher had some originalist spirit, then maybe the warning is correct.
May 7, 2010, 2:40 pmGaius Obvious says:
My old VHS copy of Spartacus has a disclaimer that it it entirely fictional and “any resemblance to any person living or dead is purely coincidental.” Which would be news to Spartacus and all the other historic characters in that movie.
May 7, 2010, 2:43 pmKeep out of kids’ reach. It’s a founding document! says:
[...] It’s just boilerplate, of course, as found on other books from the same publisher. More: Eugene Volokh and Damon Root, Reason “Hit and Run”. And reader L.S. points out that in their [...]
May 7, 2010, 2:55 pmDon Rodrigo says:
I have no problem with the language of the 14th amendment on MALE voters.
Here’s what the 19th amendment got us immediately:
Warren G. Harding and Prohibition.
May 7, 2010, 3:00 pmBrian G. says:
The Constitution is really out of date and should just be abolished as the racist and sexist document it is. The Declaration of Independence really doesn’t mean anything anymore, so who really cares?
May 7, 2010, 3:33 pmDon Rodrigo says:
You forgot to mention that you were quoting Obama.
May 7, 2010, 4:22 pmXenocles says:
The sad part is not that parents might want to talk with their children about what they read but that apparently they need to be reminded to do so.
May 7, 2010, 5:04 pmChris Travers says:
You do know why that disclaimer was in place right?
It wasn’t Spartacus they were worried about… It was the fact that there was an aweful lot of Communists vs McCarthy stuff in the movie hidden behind the quasi-historical elements.
May 7, 2010, 5:27 pmmyth buster says:
Concerning Indians, the reason they were not counted was because they weren’t citizens of the United States; they were citizens of their tribes, which were sovereign nations prior to the 19th Century Indian Wars. As foreign nationals, they neither paid taxes to our government, nor were they subject to it. The Founders rightly deemed that the Tribes had no more business electing our government than we had determining their chiefs.
May 7, 2010, 5:55 pmPatrick says:
The warning label they REALLY need is on the NEW stuff:
This work is a product of its time and does not reflect the solid Christian values it would if it were written in the pre-PC era. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have obliterated common sense mores in the modern era before allowing them to read any work by this publisher or recommended by the ALA.
May 7, 2010, 6:04 pmArnold Williams says:
This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written at a different time. Parents and teachers might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work. Alternatively, they might wish to discuss how views of the nature of society and moral law in the world have changed over time, finally pointing out that books written today will appear antiquated and quaint within their own lifetimes, and so solutions offered should be labeled as “provisional, at best”.
May 7, 2010, 8:37 pmjgreene says:
How truly stupid and arrogant are these elitist “jerks”.
May 7, 2010, 10:16 pmKen Arromdee says:
That’s about as bad as the idea that only people with military service can vote and has the same flaw: The people who promote this idea seem to think that voting is about voting yourselves bread and circuses and have in mind the scenario where the voters get to vote that they get taxpayer money.
And the flaw in it is that that’s not all that voting is for. Voting is also for protecting one’s rights, and even someone who is poor still deserves to have their rights protected. I suppose wanting a gay marriage, or evolution in science classes, or wanting to prevent police corruption, or wanting to stop discrimination are all distantly related to spending of taxpayer money, but it’s not about spending in the sense that “I want the government to buy food for me” is. And you certainly don’t need to be a taxpayer to be victimized by a corrupt cop.
May 7, 2010, 11:56 pmCelebrim says:
““all men are created equal” is another good example. At the time, they really did mean it to exclude women…”
No, that’s not true. The ‘all men’ in that phrase is intended to include all of humanity. The self-evident nature of the claim is an appeal to the Bible, and its very much something like this passage that Adams and Jefferson have in mind (Adams having modified Jefferson’s preferred/original language):
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
The ultimate equality of men and women (and peasant and king and men of all races) and their intended equality in their creation was a core doctrine of Christianity however much learned people had found ways of evading it in practice. After that, Jefferson moves into a specifically Enlightenment conception, channelling Locke on the natural rights of man – meaning all men. Jefferson isn’t claiming that men, and not women, enjoy the right to ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’. He’s asserting universal rights. It would take however some time before that assertion wormed itself into the public conscious enough to truly overturn the notion that they ought not have the same legal rights.
May 8, 2010, 12:00 amKirk Parker says:
Chris
Yes, and here at the Conspiracy we have free mocking in action (and quite well-deserved mocking, in the instant case.)
May 8, 2010, 4:16 amGus says:
The 19th amendment caused the 18th?
May 9, 2010, 12:53 amMalcolm Smith says:
Anybody who reads the literature of earlier ages soon discovers two things: (1)different ages have different values, but (2) some values are eternal. The PC crowd doesn’t think readers are able to determine this for themselves. Worse, they are terrified that readers might actually use the discovery to correct the errors of our time – of which their viewpint is a good example.
May 9, 2010, 2:46 amAn Interesting Warning Label - ladyblu's posterous says:
[...] A disclaimer that appears in Wilder Publications printing of the US Constitution among other things.Source:http://volokh.com/2010/05/06/quite-a-warning-label/ [...]
May 10, 2010, 7:48 amBryan C says:
I suppose it’s a matter of taste. I’ve watched a lot of old cartoons and have never felt offended. Sure, the humor may date badly, but I don’t think laughing at cartoon caricatures of a pygmy in a grass skirt, a bumbling hunter with a lisp, or a cartoon Chinaman with big teeth and a straw hat are going to permanently scar the psyches of our children.
May 10, 2010, 11:45 amKamal says:
Was that sarcastic? If not, why? I’ve read this book many times, and besides it’s very libertarian philosophy, I don’t see what’s so dangerous. It’s most definitely less dangerous than many religious texts.
May 12, 2010, 2:50 pmBarb says:
This is all pure hogwash. For those who don’t know what hog wash is…it’s the leftover crap from the table that no one wants and instead of throwing it in the trash, it goes to the hogs. In other words, what a bunch of crap. Are we really even having this discussion? Who in the hell took it upon themselves to put a warning label on the Constitution? For the love of God, see this for what it is. It’s another attemp by our Godless society to scrub any reference of God from anything and everything. Wake up people. For over 200 years now, the Constitution has been considered a masterpiece written ( back then) by the worlds most intelluctual men. MODERN STADARDS OF OFFENSIVENESS???? What? This is just attempt to rid all reference of God from anything written. Athiests will stop at nothing to take all religious references from anything that comes in touch with the public. Because they don’t believe, they can say it offends them and we all have to suffer. What utter nonsense this is!!!! Does anyone really believe that doing all these petty little thngs to stop Christianity will actually have any real effect??? Those that do not believe have already sealed their fate and those that do cannot be hurt by any little trivail stunt that is pulled by the athiests. While the progressives are doing all they can to take any reference of religion out of our society, they are absolutely condoning the spread of the Muslim religion. No one is challenging them are they? It’s perfectly ok to put up a Mosque here isn’t it? I don’t hear the progressives complaining about that. Do you?
Lets put a warning label on the constitution but lets not do a dammed thing to stop the spread if Islam and it’s anti American, (anti British, anti Canadian, anti Australian, pretty much anti everyone that is not a Muslim) rhetoric thoughout the world. Let’s not do anything about them building a mosque at ground zero of 911 and slapping us in the face. Let’s be absolutely politically corect while the Muslims come to America and make demands because Christianity offends them. And by all means, go ahead and kiss thier asses and their feet while you are on your knees subjugating yourself to them and wringing your hands while they institute shahari law in your hometown. And people wonder why we are clinging to our guns and our religion. FOOLS!!!!!
June 10, 2010, 11:18 am