Religious Implications of Children's Literature as Viewed by Religious Fundamentalists: The Mozert Case

Abstract

Religious Implications of Children's Literature as Viewed by Religious Fundamentalists:The Mozert Case Joan DelFattore (bio) The most comprehensive American federal court case dealing with religious objections to children's literature took place in Greeneville, Tennessee, between 1983 and 1987. The fundamentalist parents who initiated this case, Mozert V. Hawkins County Public Schools, made over 400 specific objections to a reading series published by Holt, Rinehart, Winston and used in the Hawkins County public schools. Concerned Women for America, a conservative group headed by Beverly LaHaye, funded the plaintiffs' case; People for the American Way, a liberal group founded by Norman Lear, funded the defense. Because the arguments and examples presented in Mozert provide a clear, comprehensive summary of the issues that underlie virtually all fundamentalist controversies over children's literature, this case deserves detailed attention. The plaintiffs in Mozert identified several "objectionable themes" in the volumes of the Holt, Rinehart, Winston reading series intended for use in Grade Two through Grade Eight. These themes, as listed in a legal brief, include futuristic supernaturalism, man as God, evolution, humanistic themes, one-world government, contrasts between religious beliefs and scientific beliefs, situation ethics, values clarification, magic, other religions, skeptical views of religion, pacifism, gender role reversal and role elimination, and rebellion against authority. [End Page 9] The core of the plaintiffs' lengthy pre-trial and trial testimony was that these objectionable themes run through the entire Holt, Rinehart, Winston series, so that exposure to the series constitutes indoctrination. The seeds of this indoctrination are, the plaintiffs claimed, found in the two second-grade readers, People Need People and The Way of the World. A close examination of their objections to these readers will serve to illustrate what is meant by religious-based objections to children's literature on the grounds cited in this case. Although the plaintiffs' testimony and legal briefs mention as many as sixteen objectionable themes, these themes tend to cluster around a smaller number of central concerns. For example, complaints based on futuristic supernaturalism, man as God, situation ethics, values clarification, rebellion against authority, and other humanistic themes all deal with the question of humanity's place in the universe in relation to God's. The Holt, Rinehart, Winston textbooks and teachers' manuals emphasize moral choices, independent decision-making, and the ability of human beings to affect their own destinies in significant ways. The plaintiffs found this objectionable because, they stated, moral choices are limited to obeying or disobeying the word of God; independent decision-making may lead to disobedience and rebellion; and the ability of human beings to affect their own destinies is sharply limited by the will and power of God. In one disputed story, "The Giant Who Didn't Win," a giant intends to destroy a town but fails three times. He is outwitted by a cobbler who tricks him into believing that the town is farther away than it is. The plaintiffs objected to having children read stories in which lies, trickery, disobedience, or other sinful behaviors lead to a favorable outcome. They objected even more strenuously to discussion questions suggested in the teachers' manual, since these questions could lead children to conclude that the cobbler's plan was clever and that his lie was acceptable because of the result it produced. Similarly, they objected to an Ethiopian folk tale, "Such Is the Way of the World," in which a boy leaves the cows unattended in order to search for his lost pet. Like "The Giant Who Didn't Win," this story features sinful behavior—in this case, disobedience to parents—that leads to a happy outcome. Although the boy in this story does not lie outright to his parents, he allows them to believe that he has watched the cows all day. The teachers' manual suggests asking the children whether they think that the boy should have told his parents what really happened, indicating that the children's answers to this question may vary. The plaintiffs argued that some children might make unacceptable statements in reply to a question that actually has only one correct answer: the boy should have told his parents. Moreover, asking the question at all, especially in the...