#learn to interpret religious texts instead of being a literal fundamentalist

[elby-and-a-blog]

Inconsistencies in the Bible: A Reflection

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” — Exodus 20:8 “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” — Romans 14:5

This is about the Law. Christianity argues that in Jesus' crucifixion, the law is fulfilled. Therefore, ceremonial laws are not required (but ok to practice). This passage in Romans is addressing Jewish and Non-Jewish Christians having their own superiority complexes. Paul is telling them to shut up about what days they consider special because the important thing is to focus on Jesus Christ's salvation, the common denominator between the two.

“… the earth abideth for ever.” — Ecclesiastes 1:4 “… the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” — 2Peter 3:10

“… I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” — Genesis 32:30 “No man hath seen God at any time…”– John 1:18

It is plainly given us to understand here, that while we are in this mortal state, we see God only through the medium of certain images, not, in the reality of His own nature. A soul influenced by the grace of the Spirit may see God through certain figures, but cannot penetrate into his absolute essence. And hence it is that Jacob, who testifies that he saw God, saw nothing butan Angel: and that Moses, who talked with God face to face, says, Show me Your way, that Imay know You: meaning that he ardently desired to see in the brightness of His own infinite Nature, Him Whom he had only as yet seen reflected in images. If however any, while inhabiting this corruptible flesh, can advance to such an immeasurable height of virtue, as to be able to discern by the contemplative vision, the eternal brightness of God, their case affects not what we say. For whoever sees wisdom, that is, God, is dead wholly to this life, being no longer occupied bythe love of it. Some hold that in the place of bliss, Godis visible in His brightness, but not in His nature. This is to indulge in over much subtlety. Forin that simple and unchangeable essence, no division can be made between the nature and the brightness. Some however there are who conceive that not even the Angels see God. (Gregory the Dialogist, c. 604)

“… Thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God…” — Leviticus 18:21 [In Judges, though, the tale of Jephthah, who led the Israelites against the Ammonoites, is being told. Being fearful of defeat, this good religious man sought to guarantee victory by getting god firmly on his side. So he prayed to god] “… If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering” — Judges 11:30-31 [The terms were acceptable to god — remember, he is supposed to be omniscient and know the future — so he gave victory to Jephthah, and the first whatsoever that greeted him upon his glorious return was his daughter, as god surely knew would happen, if god is god. True to his vow, the general made a human sacrifice of his only child to god!] — Judges 11:29-34

Missed the point of the story; the act itself is wrong, and God allowed Jephthah in the same way you allow someone else to do something you know is very, very stupid. The point is to teach the Israelites not to make rash vows. This is echoed in the Sermon on the Mount. Also, Judges is all about people being not the best. This helps illustrate that. Note that it is never stated that God was happy with this arrangement.

“… with God all things are possible.” — Matthew 19:26 “…The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” — Judges 1:19

Ambiguity in the pronouns -- are you SURE the he in here refers to God, and not Judah?

“…thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. ” — Exodus 21:23-25 “…ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” — Matthew 5:39

Jesus literally quotes Exodus a few verses before Matthew 5:39. What he's doing here is expanding the law; because we can't be sure if our enemy is truly as depraved as you think we are, and also we don't live in a theocracy anymore, so the law is expanded, so we don't falsely accuse others and acquit blood on OUR hands as well.

“This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.” — Genesis 17:10 “…if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” — Galatians 5:2

Okay, so this is an interesting point. Paul himself seems to oscillate between circumcision not mattering and circumcision being bad, but both are fueled by the same principle: Physical circumcision means nothing if your Heart (symbolic) isn't circumcised (given to God). In Galatians he condemns the practice, seemingly because people wee flaunting it as a sign of being more holy.

“Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of this mother…” — Deuteronomy 27:22 “And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter…it is a wicked thing….” — Leviticus 20:17 [But what was god’s reaction to Abraham, who married his sister — his father’s daughter?] See Genesis 20:11-12 “And God said unto Abraham, As for Sara thy wife…I bless her, and give thee a son also of her…” — Genesis 17:15-16

Genesis… takes place before Leviticus and Deuteronomy. I feel like y'all have no time sense. Okay, jokes aside, this is a good question. If God were consistent, why does he ban incest in one text, and then just not care on the other? I've heard that it was because He knew that inbreeding would cause actual problems by the time of Exodus, but before then, people had to do it to populate, so therefore it didn't matter.

“A good man obtaineth favour of the LORD…” — Proverbs 12:2 Now consider the case of Job. After commissioning Satan to ruin Job financially and to slaughter his shepherds and children to win a petty bet with Satan. God asked Satan: “Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.” — Job 2:3

Actually, Job was literally a response against sayings like "your sin made you sick" and stuff like that. It's saying that you can't victim-blame people for their suffering. Does that make Proverbs wrong? No??? Favour can come in many forms, not just material wealth. Also, it is to note here that Satan may not even be the Devil as we know him; that concept only exists in Christianity. For all we now, Ha-Satan, the Accuser, is a prosecutor charged with obtaining evidence for his case against Job. If he were the devil… now that makes it spicy. I currently cannot respond to that. I concede.

“Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart…” — Ecclesiastes 9:7 “…they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not…” — 1 Corinthians 7:30

Okay, so these are different responses to the fact that this world is vanity. One response is to enjoy it while it lasts, trusting God. The other is to behave stoically, trusting God. I suppose the emphasis here is in trusting God, and not eating/not rejoicing.

“The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father…” — Ezekiel 18:20 “I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation…” — Exodus 20:5

Ooooh this is actually hard. Not to help that Ezekiel 18:20 is literally a response to "wait, doesn't the child bear the sin of their parents!?"

“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.” — James 1:13 “And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham…” — Genesis 22:1

The word used for "tempt" in James 1 is "πειράζομαι". The word in Septuagint's Genesis 22 is "ἐπείραζεν"-- They're actually different forms of each other! So how do we explain James contradicting even the Greek version of Genesis? Well, Augustine of Hippo explains It as thus (emphasis mine): 'It is often asked how this can be true when James says in his letter that God does not tempt anyone (Jas. 1:13). The answer is that the language of Scripture often uses the word “tempt” with the meaning of “prove.” Instead, the temptation spoken of by James is understood only as referring to that by which one falls into the nets of sin. That is why the Apostle says: lest the tempter should tempt you (1 Thess. 3:5). For it is written elsewhere: The Lord your God tempts you to know if you love him (Deut. 13:3). Naturally, this expression says: to know, as if it were said: “to make you know”, because the power of love itself is hidden from man, if God does not make it known through a test of his. [Augustine of Hippo, Question on Genesis, PL 34, Question 57]'.

“Honor thy father and thy mother…”– Exodus 20:12 “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. ” — Luke 14:26

This is emphasizing that you honor God, even when your family objects to your belief, as it is in a dialogue about not being afraid of persecutions. Jesus condemns his contemporaries for giving tithes instead of taking care of their parents as well, and Paul literally anathematizes those who abandon their family without cause.

“…he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. ” — Job 7:9 “…the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth….” — John 5:28-29

Job is expressing his despair, not theologizing important truths. Literally right above we know that Job was not treated well. So with that in mind, maybe him complaining about life is not out of the ordinary? On the other hand, Jesus is actually theologizing about the end of the world. So basically this is someone complaining that science is useless vs an entire essay about why science is useful both mentioned in a scientific journal.

“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. ” — Matthew 16:28 “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. ” — Luke 21:32-33 “And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.” — Romans 13:11-12 “Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.” — James 5:8 “Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.” — 1 John 2:18 “But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.” — 1 Peter 4:7 These words were written between 1800 and 1900 years ago and were meant to warn and prepare the first Christians for the immediate end of the world. Some words are those supposedly straight out of the mouth of the “Son of God.” The world did not end 1800 or 1900 years ago. All that generation passed away without any of the things foretold coming to pass. No amount of prayer brought it about; nor ever so much patience and belief and sober living. The world went on, as usual, indifferent to the spoutings of yet another batch of doomsday prophets with visions of messiahs dancing in their deluded brains. The world, by surviving, makes the above passages contradictions.

Hey. Pssst. 2 Peter 3 exists:

"This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them gI am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, 2 that you should remember the predictions of ithe holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, 3 knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. 4 They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth nwas formed out of water and through water oby the word of God, 6 and that by means of these the world that then existed pwas deluged with water and perished. 7 But by the same word rthe heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and sdestruction of the ungodly. 8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise vas some count slowness, but is patient toward you,1 not wishing that any should perish, but ythat all should reach repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and bthe heavenly bodies2 will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. 11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, 12 dwaiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and ethe heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! 13 But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells."

[10512-blog]

Religion paper!

Eric Bleys

Religion 240

3/27/2017

Bruce Chilton

Gandhi as a Religious innovator

The argument of the paper, “Gandhi and his gita,” is that Gandhi was a religious thinker whose method of religious thought and practice was deeply integrated with his social and political activism. Gandhi’s approach to spirituality lead to his distinctly pacifist approach to the socio-political world. The reasons, according to the article, behind his moral approach to politics is rooted in these spiritual practices. These spiritual practices included religious universalism, religious syncretism, the incorporation of life into religious texts, and the texts into life. They also included the incorporation of personal and social experience into the same interpretive structure of religious truth along with the reading of religious texts. Another spiritual practice was a non literal approach to a famous passage of the Gita that seems to justify violence.

Religious innovation, is often a process in which truth is approached through a wide range of methods in such a way as to produce original ideas or interpretations of older traditions. And Gandhi, is presented in the paper as someone who was essentially a religious innovator. A thinker who incorporates multiple methods into producing a single outcome. The teachings of Jesus, the Buddha, and the Gita, were all inspirations for Gandhi’s thought. The paper presents Gandhi as a religious thinker who is essentially anti-fundamentalist in his theology. His thought is presented as anti fundamentalist in one sense because the literal nature of religious texts and traditions is not regarded as absolute. Instead, a reflective and critical approach to faith is utilized within Gandhian religious thought. One which allows contextual information to shape the message of particular texts. If a religious text is interpreted through a social and philosophical process, and given meaning through that process, then the meaning of the text no longer sticks to the “letter of the law,” but produces an original meaning in harmony with the process which exists from outside the text.

If religious truth does not come from only one source then the potential for innovation is increased. One of the central points of the paper was that Gandhi’s diversity of sources for religious truth, and his integration of religious learning with his own life, led him to his unique moral approach to politics.

“As Gandhi observes of his nineteen year old self, “My young mind tried to unify the teachings of the Gita, The Light of Asia, and the Sermon on the Mount” (3) The beginning of the paper depicts Gandhi as a religious universalist. Or in other words, a thinker who is operating in a tradition of religious syncretism and religious universalists.  Gandhi, according to the paper, is also someone who combined his campaigns for social justice with his spiritual insights. “He wrote two retrospective books during this period, Satyagraha in South Africa (1925) and An Autobiography, or The Story of My Experiments with Truth (1927, 1929), and he began to set forth his own interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita in the form of essays, translation, and commentary” (5). These two sources reflects the idea that Gandhi had multiple epistemic sources of religious truth. These epistemic sources include, the experience gained from his socio-political projects, the rational interpretation of diverse religious traditions into a unified message, the textual sources such as the sermon on the Mt, the Light of Asia, and the teachings of the Gita, as well as his interactions with other religious intellectuals.

The paper argues for Gandhi as a religious innovator, whose innovation significantly shapes his moral approach to politics. This thesis is argued by drawing upon the history of his intellectual development. The process of this history is used to show how Gandhi’s innovation allowed him to use war like texts to promote his pacifist agenda. Gandhi’s ability to add new meaning to old religious texts is embedded in his very personality. The argument is supplemented by the documentation of the way in which he was perceived by hindus as someone fit to rewrite Krishna’s teachings for the present age. By showing that his social role was one of religious innovation in the minds of believers the text shows the way in which Gandhi’s own creative religious thought lead to its own unique fruits. By presenting Gandhi as a creative thinker as well as someone occupying a social role as a religious leader reshaping religious practice, the paper invites us to see the connection between the originality in the thought as well as the social impact of Gandhi’s life.

The paper makes it clear that Gandhi was viewed as someone reinventing the ancient teachings of Krishna, “Just as Gandhi was sometimes identified by Hindu believers as a new avatar come to restore dharma, so his rendering of the Gita could be understood as a rewriting of Krishna’s teachings for the present age (7).” The situation described in the paper can be compared to the role of Christ in the Christian faith. Jesus, is presented as the fuller of the Torah and the prophets who comes to recreate the meaning of an ancient tradition for a new age. By describing the way in which Gandhi used personal experience as a source of religious truth while also presenting Gandhi as a source of new religious revelation, the conclusion which follows from these premises is that personal experience is itself a source of religious innovation. This implies that the nature of religious truth is not one which emerges through direct revelation of absolute truth at a given moment in time, but that instead it is something progressive, which emerges incrementally along with the advancement of human wisdom. The advancement of human wisdom comes at least in part from great religious innovators who are able to improve upon ancient truths in the light of new and original experience. If revelation is perfected by time then religious truth is progressive rather than staid. And the paper uses this concept to argue for Gandhi as a religious creative whose theology shaped his political innovation. “Although he emphasized the role of the inner voice, Gandhi’s own quest for interpretive Truth was not just an interior process. Truth was also to be explored, sought, and discovered through interactions with others (10).” So this passage presents Gandhi as having two non textual, and also personal, sources of religious truth. Gandhi approaches religious issues through internal meditation as well as personal interaction with others. The passage makes it clear that interpretative truth, for Gandhi, was found both through interactions with others as well as through his own inner voice.  So Gandhi, with this epistemic stance, has the ability to cast shades of meaning upon the text, both internally, through the inner emotions or rational thoughts, as well as through the human social network which is rooted in the empirical. The writer of ancient wisdom, herself or himself being human, was subject to the same processes that Gandhi was subject to, in both the social and internal aspects of life.

And therefore to search for meaning in these places of the internal and the social is to search for the source from which the textual wisdom was composed. For even if a religious story is lacking in any historical or empirical content, it may very well be the abstraction of true and real experience. And this abstraction, may be designed to present the wisdom of another without putting oneself perfectly in another's shoes. And therefore to connect oneself and one's experiences with the text may give one the ability to lift the veil of metaphor to a certain extent. But more importantly it provides for a method of religious learning in which the wisdom which is developed is collectively produced, rather than merely being the expression of one person's understanding of the enormously complex issues that are at the heart of religious thought.

The paper's argument uses the following passage to show that Gandhi’s religious thinking needed to depart from the most direct meaning of an important passage of the Gita, “Yet he recognized the tension between his commitment to nonviolence and Krishna’s command to Arjuna in the Gita to engage in a violent battle. Other prominent Indian nationalists like Aurobindo and Tilak had seen in Krishna’s directive a warrant to struggle, and to use violence if necessary, in pursuit of a righteous cause. Independence from foreign rule, swaraj or self-rule, was just such an objective. The interpretive conundrum comes up repeatedly in Gandhi’s writings on the Gita, and Gandhi often uses the challenges posed by others, like Swami Anand here, as a starting point for his own explications of the work” (12). By showing Gandhi’s political need to move past a direct or literal reading of the text, the paper demonstrates how essential non textual sources are for Gandhi’s construction of religious truth, and how this unique method of developing religious truth was essential to his political agenda. The fact that he “recognized the tension between his commitment to nonviolence and Krishna’s command to Arjuna in the Gita to engage in a violent battle,” shows that he understood the need for outside sources to alter the meaning of the text. If the text is meant to be interpreted in the context of life itself, then the meaning of the text need no longer stick entirely to its original meaning. Since Gandhi was applying the text to politics he was clearly searching for the meaning of the text in relation to the real, concrete world. And by relating the text back to the world a different meaning can emerge.

If religious truth, for Gandhi, is a progress process, what provides a given religious truth with the ability to remain authoritative? What prevents the truths of non-violence from being revoked by the truths of further experience? And how can a religious text maintain the integrity of its meaning of it is always altered by outside sources? In other words, what is the origin of stability for religious truth, for Gandhi, if religious truth emerges from an organic, multifaceted, and progressive process?

[djgblogger-blog]

What do protests about Harry Potter books teach us?

http://bit.ly/2vHj2kj

What justifies keeping some books out of the hands of young readers? Sodanie Chea, CC BY

On Monday, June 26, 2017, Harry James Potter – the world’s most famous wizard – will celebrate his 20th birthday. His many fans will likely mark the occasion by rereading a favorite Harry Potter novel or rewatching one of the blockbuster films. Some may even raise a butterbeer toast in Harry’s honor at one of three Harry Potter-themed amusement parks.

But not everyone will be celebrating Harry’s big day. In fact, a vocal group of Christians – usually identified as “Bible-believing” or fundamentalist Christians – has been resistant to Harry’s charms from the start. Members of this community, who believe the Bible to be literal truth, campaigned vigorously to keep J.K. Rowling’s best-selling novels out of classrooms and libraries. They even staged public book burnings across the country, at which children and parents were invited to cast Rowling’s books into the flames. These fiery spectacles garnered widespread media coverage, sparking reactions ranging from bemusement to outrage.

Harry Potter turns 20 on June 26. Lesley Choa, CC BY-NC-ND

What could justify the use of such drastic measures to keep these books out of the hands of young readers?

The different views on Harry Potter

Book burnings may be relatively rare in modern America, but efforts to protect young readers from “dangerous” texts are not. Such texts, and the efforts to limit their readership, are the subject of a class I teach at the University of Southern California.

In this class, students survey a collection of books that have been challenged on moral, political and religious grounds. These include classics such as “1984” and “To Kill a Mockingbird,” as well as newer texts like “Persepolis” and “The Perks of Being a Wallflower.” The point is not to determine which challenges are “good” and which are “bad.” Instead, we seek to understand how differing beliefs about reading and subjectivity make certain texts seem dangerous and others seem safe to particular populations of readers.

Harry Potter is one of the first books we discuss.

Most readers of Rowling’s novel – including many Christian readers – interpret the characters’ tutelage in spells and potions as harmless fantasy, or as metaphors for the development of wisdom and knowledge. Similarly, they read incidents in which Harry and his friends disobey adults or make questionable choices as opportunities for characters and readers alike to learn important lessons and begin to develop their own moral and ethical codes.

What makes some literary texts appear ‘dangerous?’ kayepants, CC BY-NC-SA

For some fundamentalist Christians, however, Harry’s magical exploits pose an active danger. According to them, Hogwarts teaches the kinds of witchcraft explicitly condemned as punishable by death and damnation in the biblical books of Deuteronomy and Exodus. They believe the books must be banned – even burned – because their positive portrayal of magic is likely to attract unsuspecting children to real-world witchcraft.

Similarly, they think that when Harry disobeys his cruel Muggle guardians or flouts Dumbledore’s rules to save his friends, he actively encourages child readers to engage in lying and disobedience, which are explicitly forbidden by the Bible. As Evangelical writer Richard Abanes puts it,

“The morals and ethics in Rowling’s fantasy tales are at best unclear, and at worst, patently unbiblical.”

Making assumptions

Why don’t Bible-believing Christians trust young readers to discern the difference between fantasy and reality? And why don’t they think children can learn positive lessons from Harry’s adventures – like the importance of standing up to injustice?

According to scholar Christine Jenkins, people who try to censor texts often hold a set of false assumptions about how reading works.

One of those assumptions is that particular literary content (like positive portrayals of witchcraft) will invariably produce particular effects (more witches in real life). Another is that reactions to a particular text are likely to be consistent across readers. In other words, if one reader finds a passage scary, funny or offensive, the assumption is that other readers invariably will do so as well.

As Jenkins points out, however, research has shown that readers’ responses are highly variable and contextual. In fact, psychologists Amie Senland and Elizabeth Vozzola have demonstrated this about readers of Harry Potter.

Readers’ responses can vary widely. Seamus McCauley, CC BY

In their study comparing the perceptions of fundamentalist and liberal Christian readers of Harry Potter, Senland and Vozzola reveal that different reading responses are possible in even relatively homogeneous groups. On the one hand, despite adults’ fears to the contrary, few children in either group believed that the magic practiced in Harry Potter could be replicated in real life. On the other, the children disagreed about a number of things, including whether or not Dumbledore’s bending of the rules for Harry made Dumbledore harder to respect.

Senland and Vozzola’s study joins a body of scholarship that indicates that children perform complex negotiations as they read. Children’s reading experiences are informed by both their unique personal histories and their cultural contexts.

In other words, there’s no “normal” way to read Harry Potter – or any other book, for that matter.

Distrusting child readers

Fundamentalist Christians aren’t the only group who have trouble trusting the capabilities of child readers.

Take the case of “To Kill a Mockingbird.”

For decades, parents have argued that Harper Lee’s novel poses a danger to young readers, and have sought to remove it from classrooms for this reason. Some parents worry that the novel’s vulgar language and sexual content will corrupt children’s morals, while others fear that the novel’s marginalization of black characters will damage the self-image of black readers.

Despite their different ideological orientations, I believe that both of these groups of protesters – like the fundamentalists who attempt to censor Harry Potter – are driven by surprisingly similar misapprehensions about reading.

In all of these cases, the protesters presume that being exposed to a phenomenon in literature (whether witchcraft, foul language or racism) naturally leads to a reproduction of that phenomenon in life. They also believe that their individual experience of a text is correct and applicable to disparate readers.

These cases of attempted censorship show a profound distrust of child readers and their imaginations. And they ignore evidence that child readers are far more sophisticated than adults tend to credit them for.

Trisha Tucker does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.