Restricting the ideas of books isn't the way to achieve morality, and certainly isn't any way to improve education. Censorship is exactly that. It's the removal, suppression and restriction of books or other material that are considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable and profane.
             Books teach valuable lessons and give it's readers a different aspect and view on life and how to live it. If these kinds of books are censored, many children can't see another way to life and what's really out there. Many books that are censored try to get a message across that the world isn't all fun and games, and you need to watch out for yourself. In addition, if certain books are censored, such as "The Catcher in the Rye", problems won't just "go away". They may even get worse. For example, Holden tells the story of James Castle, and how he committed suicide because a group of boys were ganging up on him. This is reality, and there are boys out there just like James who are bullied to the threshold, and boys out in the world who do the bullying. Children need to be taught that there are thousands of bullies out in the world and thousands of children who get bullied and they're not alone. It's scenes like this that parents don't want their children subjected to. But parents need to be able to trust their children's teachers and their parenting skills and not forbid children to learn the reality of the world and the truth that books such as "Catcher in the Rye" reveal, even if the book is profane in many ways, because honestly, life is profane, and books are the teachers and show children the truth about that in creative ways. This is the point that Shelley Keller-Gage is trying to make in her article, The Catcher in the Rye- Censored, and I completely agree with her. As she was reading this book with her English class, she noticed their maturity...