Parents fight library's gay-themed books

That being "tolerance" is a relative term. Each have you have responded with "intolerant" comments directed at me. I thank you all.

As for the last anon, my mentality is fine. Your inability to discern an analogy is not.

Help me out here, mdoneil, whoever you are. Just what do you mean by "fascist"? Do either of Merriam-Webster's definitions apply?

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

Or should I understand your fascism in some other way?

I, conservative Christian that I am, would regard being called a Fascist in either of the above senses a very, very bad thing.

"2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control"

That's the word... "autocratic" -- for librarians who feel like they must push their own agendas down the throats of the public. "The public is just not informed, and it's our duty to enlighten them!!!" (... the prevailing attitude)

Yeah... that's what Hitler did too--as did the Fascist Party.
Is it too much to ask to have librarians just buy books that provide entertaining, educational, and instructive material to the readers--rather than pushing radical agendas?!!!

If I hadn't already posted in this thread, I would mod Kat's posting (parent to this one) up. Parents, and not the state (whether in the form of libraries or schools) bear the primary responsibility for the education of children.

Is it too much to ask to have librarians just buy books that provide entertaining, educational, and instructive material to the readers--rather than pushing radical agendas?!!!

Of course it's not too much to ask. When they push radical agendas, they should be called on it. Are you suggesting that it amounts to pushing a radical agenda every time they buy a book with gay characters in it? Let me ask: did the book in question fit into the selection guidelines? Do they buy books from a conservative perspective as well, and in measure with the demographic of their community? If the answer to these questions is "yes", then in my view the purchase of the offending book did not constitute pushing a radical agenda. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

If and when a librarian tries to help my child "discover" his/her supposed gayness, or refuses to buy religious, pro-2nd-amendment, conservative, or libertarian materials, or tries to teach my child to pray, then believe me I will stand up and shout.

I am well aware that radical agendas are being pushed in the library world. Buying books I don't approve of doesn't constitute a radical agenda unless they are also excluding books I do want and approve of.

I think it is interesting that the person raising the complaint says that they don't approve because the library owning the book is trying to "push this kind of lifestyle on people". Yet they belong to a church with a very active missionary program. Don't they support an attempt to promote their own religious lifestyle among people who don't don't initially share their religious views?

I wonder how tolerant of censorship they would be if a non-christian objected to the library having christian materials in its collection.

I've read your self-congratulatory, triumphalist sneer at Peta. Believe me, Tomeboy, you are intolerant. Don't confuse simply being irritated with being offended.

The individual gay American was never told to use a separate rest room, go to a separate school, or sit in the back of the bus.

Yet, that's what many religious elements want for them. And I'll go so far as to point out that in ultra-religious societies, such as Iran, homosexuality is a capital crime. Which it also would be in an ultra-conservative North America.

I suppose you could use the m-w.com definition. I have never composed a bibliography, as most people are so put off by their perception of Fascism few people want to read about it.

SO:
: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race (race plays no part in Phalangism) above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader,(aren't they all?) severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Try for example the Falangist Party in Spain, the closest I can find to my political beliefs. (http://www.la-falange.com/nacional/)

Of course most of the 'Fascist' groups in the US are whackos, and Falangism won't ever make a dent in the Republican or Democratic parties (or the Greens, or the Bull Moose or any other party in the States) so I don't delude myself thinking that it will.

However Fascism could work, but the dictators that attempted Fascism failed to follow the doctorine and became egotistical madmen.

I do however espouse strong autocratic control as one of your definitions states.

Sheesh... Tome was saying he bets librarians don't buy THOSE books--which again means--librarians ARE buying these books--by choice--for their own (I say "stealth") agendas.

Re-read the post.

Some strange Mormon woman = Pol Pot
Some strange Mormon woman = Mussolini
Some strange Mormon woman = Hitler

Wow what a leap. Goofy woman who wants no gay books in the library, to genocidal dictator.

If I ever need something blown out of proportion I know who to call.

Amazing!

"All I have ever said is that until professionals have universally said that single gender couples are a norm then it is still another matter."

Well, since "professionals" almost never "universally say" ANYTHING, that's pretty much assuring that it will always be another matter. There are still "professionals" who believe miscegenation is a bad thing. So?

OK, I'll bite: I think that if you can demonstrate that citizens of a town UNIVERSALLY say that a book should be restricted, then probably it should be restricted. Good luck getting that kind of agreement.

"Advocating through books is taking the matter "to the streets" and that has never been a way to solve problems. "

A strange worldview. Most folks would consider advocacy through books to be a reasoned approach to advocacy, quite the opposite of taking it to the streets--and if books aren't one way to solve problems, we're really in the wrong field.

"The individual gay American was never told to use a separate rest room, go to a separate school, or sit in the back of the bus. To compare the rights movements is an insult to the Rev. Martin Luther King."

Shot, knifed, dragged behind trucks, beaten up. I guess those don't count.

>>None of the gay-themed children books that I have seen depict straights as the equivalent of nasty racial stereotypes.

Help me. How does one stay "tolerant" yet make personal value judgements as you have with...nasty racial stereotypes.

My point is this, we are ALL intolerant. At least most folks. It is simply a matter of where the line is being drawn as illustrated with your remarks here. Simple. You needn't read anymore into my analogy than this.

So you mean it does not really matter if there is stuff in the library that I don't like. Stuff that offends me?

Is that what you are saying? I should just learn to deal with it because whomever does collection development thinks that the book is wanted or needed.

Uh..... OK.

"Although, really, with all the ideas that exist in the books in the library...it's never been all that safe, has it??"

Indeed, an educated populace is a wonderfully dangerous thing. Lookout for the nonviolent social change!

[ Now I'm agreeing with the Canadian liberals, I better go back to bed:) ]

Of course if I don't read it I wont't know it offends me.

I'm off to borrow Catch-22

Question: Why were those books in the library in the first place?

Answer: BECAUSE, a librarian with an "agenda" purchased them.
Parents and public have a right to have some say in what they and their children can/do see in a "public" library.

Of course political, religious, sexual, favorite pet and all other feeling should affect a collection development librarians choices. They however should not be solely his or her political...etc feeling, but those of anyone who uses the library.

Try to buy a little of everything according to the expressed wishes of the people in the area served. If they don't tell you what they want then use your CD skills to develop the collection yourself.

If people don't like it let the go read something else. If your library only has one book, don't make it King and King, otherwise a few gay books won't make anyone gay. Just as not having gay books will straighten out anybody who is gay.

I wouldn't be too sure about King being insulted. According to a column Leonard Pitts wrote a couple years ago, "[King's] widow, Coretta, said through a spokesman that, while her husband never publicly addressed the issue of homosexuality, they did discuss it privately, and he told her he was concerned about the discrimination suffered by gay men and lesbians."

not all Holocaust deniers are neo-nazis, some of them are merely people who think for themselves and question the commonly held assertion from a viewpoint of scientific scepticism.

Sure. Just a collection of tweed coat types, pouring over whatever research they can get their mitts on (or create themselves).

Care to share any thoughts about the likelihood, or perhaps names, of these Semitic sleuths within your circle of "free thinking scholars" being Jewish?

Well, a couple weeks ago, my child brought home a book called Cat Heaven from the elementary school library. In cat heaven, God lets cats sleep on the bed, etc. I was shocked, *shocked* by the religious agenda being pushed by that book, purchased with my tax dollars!

On the other hand, I would really, really like to see an illustrated kids' book done about King Eglon's assassination from the book of Judges.

And speaking of illustrated Bible stories, I recall a children's book about Joseph from some years back in which Potiphar's wife was pictured wearing a see-through tunic for her seduction attempt. Is anyone familiar with that book?

The holocaust was a fact which is documented by both Jewish and non-Jewish sources. Yet there are those that denied it happened. Mel Gibson's father said that the victims weren't killed they went to Brooklyn and Australia. Is this a thinking man? I wonder is someone denied the genocide in Rwanda, would they be called a thinking person? Holocaust denier= buzz word antisemite. Agendas tend to create their own language and buzz words.

Care to share any thoughts about the likelihood, or perhaps names, of these Semitic sleuths within your circle of "free thinking scholars" being Jewish?

Right here:

The Best American Essays 2002
Ed. Stephen Jay Gould -2002
ISBN 0-618-04932-0
Dewey # 814.008 B561

One of those essays is by a Jewish scholar who went to a Holocaust Denier conference against his better judgement, because he had been invited to give a talk. And while the keynote speaker was Ernst Zundel, a raving neo-nazi lunatic, the author of the piece was blown away by the fact that the conferencees were rational, articulate, and well educated.

Got any other methods by which you'd like to shoot yourself in the foot?

First. The essay, the memorable one that you couldn’t recall, is “Inside the Bunker� written by John Sack. The conference was an Institute for Historical Review shindig. (you are welcome, I do this for a living)

Your nomination of Mr. Straw as an IHR devotee is either, the product of shoddy research or an attempt to mislead. I leave others to decide this.

Regardless you are conflating outward appearances of members "...rational, articulate, and well educated" with an endorsement of crack pot revisionism. Here are Mr. Straw’s own words about his invitation to speak to the IHR taken from his essay,
Daniel in the Deniers Den .

….. By bedtime on Friday, my impression of the Countesses was like my impression of UFO devotees. Everyone in America believes in one or another ridiculous thing. Me, I belong to the International Society for Cryptozoology and I firmly believe that in Lake Tele, in the heart of the Congo, there is a living, breathing dinosaur. Fifteen years ago, I even went there to photograph it—I didn’t, I didn’t even see it, but I still believe in it. Other people believe other things, and the Countesses and the other deniers believe that the Holocaust didn’t happen. Like me in the Congo, they’re wrong, wrong, wrong, but to say that emphatically isn’t to say (as some people do) that they’re odious, contemptible, despicable.

Are you certain that gunfire you mentioned wasn't directed at your evidence?

Mr.Straw

I think that there are far more gay parents or children who have gay relatives or family friends out there than the number of practicing polygamists.

So collection development should be based upon the local, majority needs?

I thank you for walking directly into yet another hypocrisy of "agenda" based collection development.

BTW "My Two Uncles" is held by 486 libraries and "Heather has Two Mommies", 1050.

Ahhh, the great Omnibus has spoken!!
;)

--> 'And the idea that "godless, heathen librarians" are pushing some kind of a secular humanist hidden agenda is just another conspiracy theory.'

No conspiracy. Just obvious from the postings on this thread. Secular humanism runs rampant among "public" librarians. And the ALA, like someone said, doesn't MAKE them do it--it just is the natural viewpoint for Omnibus and friends.

You can call it intolerance over there in PC land Fang, but I'll stick with good ole fashioned free thinking opinions over here.

You're projecting your shadow again, Tomeboy. Political correctness is when you forbid someone to admit a truth because it might hurt somebody's feelings. Saying that a bigot is intolerant is free speech; saying no one is allowed to admit it is political correctness. Saying, "I'm offended by homosexuals" is free speech, deciding, "therefore no one is allowed to have access to information about how homosexuals are not demonic creatures" is intolerance.

But don't blow a gasket. I don't expect you to get it.

Well I will say this, you certainly understand the semantics associated with PC speak. Vacuous accusations, written with all of the care and contemplation to fit on any given Post It Note. Nevermind the details or the thought of offering a specific example, it's that wonderful sensation of moral superiority that counts. Right?

If "sneering" as you berate, is a symptom of intolerance then either; you have just committed the most flagrant act of hypocrisy to date on this board or your genteel posts from here on out are going to be a hoot to read.

You can call it intolerance over there in PC land Fang, but I'll stick with good ole fashioned free thinking opinions over here.

>>I do not my comments were "intolerant" of your feelings or beliefs.

Clear as mud.

Question. Aside from "feelings and beliefs" what is left to offend? Or perhaps you are suggesting a "safe harbor" with intolerance so long as it stays within the confines of another's "feeling and beliefs". Which brings us full circle to Mormon and the gay-themed books.

However Fascism could work, but the dictators that attempted Fascism failed to follow the doctorine and became egotistical madmen. I do however espouse strong autocratic control as one of your definitions states.

How do you arrive at your understanding of what "works"? What fundamental beliefs provide the context for judging what works, in your view?

How far does the strong autocratic control you propose regulate the lives of individuals, and on whose say-so? Do I get to keep my theology? Do I get to keep my epistemology?

The question that graces the Third Superpower is perhaps the most urgent from my perspective: quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Opus Dei perhaps?

A church doesn't get its funding from government sources.

And a library shouldn't be pushing ANY agenda.

The more controversial the library is, the more likely they're going to lose public support... a dose of reality, I call it.

Question.

Because balance and alternative lifestyle choices are considered fundamental collection criteria for children’s literature for some on this board, I am curious how many of these same colleagues have, “All is Well� by Kristin Embry Litchman (Delacorte Press, 1998) in their library?

This story about growing up Mormon in the late 19th century, written for 8 to 12 year old children, paints a sympathetic portrait of bigamy and the persecution faced by those who found this lifestyle immoral. It is also unique as School Library Journal says, “Descriptions of Mormon life are rare in children's books, and Litchman provides a well-balanced assessment of their culture.�

"Unique" is certainly an appropriate description in comparison to other titles held in WorldCat such as "Heather Has Two Mommies".

I personally wouldn't want my child exposed to any materials that have any reference to jesus in them. It goes against my values and what I believe. Should I protest if my library happens to have copies of bible stories for young people or the young adult or comic book version of the Left Behind series? I don't want my child exposed to that agenda! My tax dollars shouldn't support it. Should these materials also be removed from the children's section?

Well, at least 395 libraries worldwide own that book according to WorldCat. In my area the Boston Public Library owns that book and several other public libraries. My library doesn't have it but since we don't have a large children's collection, it probably doesn't fall under our collection development policy. However according to WorldCat only 293 libraries own King and King. I think that there are far more gay parents or children who have gay relatives or family friends out there than the number of practicing polygamists.

It looks to me like our libraries aren't stocking enough gay friendly literature! Why aren't they being more responsive to the queer community?
Bring on "My Two Uncles" and "Heather has Two Mommies"!!!

Who, is guarding the guards indeed. If it worked, no one would need to. I said it could work, I did not say it probably would.

I am as much in favor of Utopia as the next guy, I may just have a different method of reaching it.

This has gotten way off track, I was responding to a post that used the term Fascist, in a way that was not correct, but remarkably popular.

To get back to the discussion: Should the nice Mormon woman be allowed to ask that gay books be removed, sure. Should they be removed, yes as far as I am concerned. Will they be removed, probably not. Should they make me dictator, I certainly think so. I'd have to quit my day job though.

In reality all library patrons are able, and should be encouraged to voice their feelings regarding collection development. I would hope those in charge of CD would take them into consideration when making choices. I am certain books that encourage tolerance and acceptance will be included in the collection. How is it possible for anyone to be opposed to tolerance is beyond me. It is like being opposed to finding a cure for cancer.

Oh, and I belong to Opus Dei, although it is more of a personal religious commitment, not some sinister movement. I also had four years of Latin, the only living dead language :) It is so nice to see it used corectly.

What is objectionable is the attempt to create a "situation on the ground" of acceptance. --Eli

Oh, yes, absolutely, it is totally unacceptable that anyone, anywhere should ever be taught tolerance. After all, how can we possibly be expected to press-gang our drones into perpetrating pogroms if they are going to ask embarrassing questions about why they are supposed to hate the Fringe Group Of The Month?

It is not the job of libraries to force feed the issue. --Eli

No, it is the job of libraries to make available the widest possible range of viewpoints and as much information as they can so people can make up their own minds. At any rate, nobody is forcing anybody to read those books. Nobody is saying to Ms. Claybrooks that she will be put to the fire and the sword if she doesn't embrace homosexuality. No, all that talk about hellfire and damnation and how the Fringe Group Of The Month is morally disordered and intrinsically evil seems to be coming from
Christians and aimed at homosexuals, not vice versa.

I have absolutely no problem with a parent that gets upset that her child has been exposed to this type of material. --David

Perhaps we should get upset. Don't forget, it was the child's mother who exposed her to that material. How come nobody is howling to the moon that she should be tried as an unfit parent for daring to read her child a "homosexual book"?

A library should buy these books if they have people in their community who want them. Keeping them in a seperate section satifies the rest of the community who don't. --GregS

Segregation is unconstitutional and illegal. I am willing to state unequivocally that such a move would never surive a challenge in the courts.

Yes, yes -- I'm sure somebody is going to say that it's segregating books, not people. The end result will be the same: discrimination against a non-mainstream group.

There are some topics that should not be open and available to children without a parent being involved no matter how 'age-appropriate' its been written. --GregS

Which raises the question: Who gets to decide? Jerry Falwell? George Bush? And to whom will you complain when you find out that some of the stuff you want to look at has been banned as well?

Gee -- here's a novel idea: why not just make all kinds of ideas and opinions available and let every person pick and choose for him or herself what to believe and what to teach their children. Golly. We could call a system like that the free market place of ideas.

You as an individual are free to do as you wish up until it affects us as a whole. --GregS

Here's a clue: How I live my life has no bearing on how you live yours. How you live your life has no bearing on how I live mine. Homosexuality does not affect me in any way, shape, or form. It does not affect society either. Homosexuals are part of the general population. They are neither morally superior or morally inferior statistically. I will state unequivocally that among homosexuals, there is the same ratio as among heterosexuals who are good parents and bad parents, and good people and
bad people.

That is not bigoted it is society's self-preservation. --GregS

Uh-huh.

You do know, don't you, that Adolf Hilter and Joseph Stalin both used that rationale to commit genocide? That ultra-religious Islamist lunatics use that specious rationale against both Israel and the United States?

If she doesn't want her children reading these books, fine. That's her right. The problem comes when she tries to make the library take over her parenting for her. --Kat

It's called "abdication of responsibility". What it boils down to is: I want society or someone else to assume total control over the raising of my children or how I live my life so nothing will ever be my fault.

Of the thousands of books that COULD be purchased for the library, the library decided that they should push this particular issue with these books--knowing full well that they were/are controversial. --commonsense

There is nothing that cannot be found offensive by someone, somewhere. Green Eggs and Ham is the story of a vicious, meat-eater who criminally harrasses a vegan until the vegan is forced to violate his chosen life-style. And To Think That I Saw It On Mulberry Street teaches children how to lie. Anything that has anything to do with Hallowe'en is satanic and occultic.

Buy anything. Tell me what it's about and I'll tell you why it shouldn't be allowed on the shelves.

And the idea that "godless, heathen librarians" are pushing some kind of a secular humanist hidden agenda is just another conspiracy theory.

And remember this: "hidden agenda" is a stock code word for the intolerant.

Parents, on the other hand, assume that their tax dollars are supporting a "safe" place for their kids to read and check out books. --commonsense

I'm a parent, and I pay my taxes. I assume my tax dollars are going to the purchase of ideas, and that some of those ideas I will not agree with. If I don't agree with those ideas, that is my problem, not everybody else's.

Sure, parents should, and can, and do, monitor their children's reading habits--otherwise this mother would have never known her child had this book. --commonsense

The child did not have the book, the mother was reading it to her.

Where does it stop? What if she objected to interracial marriages and was offended by a book that showed that? --slashgirl

Been there, done that.

1959: The Rabbits' Wedding

A picture book for children. After protests by the White Citizens' Council it was put on the reserved shelf in Alabama public libraries. Because it was thought to promote racial integration.

The alphabet primer Jambo Means Hello, was challenged by white supremacists on the grounds that it would help Blacks resist assimiliation. The book offers words in Swahili with accompanying English text, but all the illustrations are of Blacks.

Teaching evolution was forbidden by fiat in one of the Bible Belt states and came under attack just this January in the state of Georgia.

But whereas a black mother and white father, or vice versa, still offer both a mother and father to a family, gay parents do not. --GregS

Bosh. Being a homosexual no more invalidates you as a parent than being Black or Jewish does.

All I am saying is that how we view male and female relationship is crosscultural and is as old as the world. --Eli

The geocentric viewpoint was another popular consensus of reality that had no basis in physical fact. People were burned at the stake for daring to question doctrine, not because they were wrong.

I remember hearing.... not so long ago that to raise our children "It Takes a Village." --tomeboy

Yes, a village; not a borg collective. A village. One with a number of diverse thinking individuals.

Big freaking deal, I am a bigot, so is everyone else ... --mdoneil

"Oh, what an egregious piece of bovine scatology, that is." Everyone has prejudices, that does not mean everyone is bigoted. The difference is: a non-bigot controls his prejudices, a bigot allows his prejudices to control him. The non-bigot is willing to set aside his viewpoints long enough to consider those of others in an effort to understand. The bigot simply destroys what he doesn't understand.

... and you all want books that mirror your opinion in the public library. --mdoneil

This is a half truth. Rational people and non-bigots do want books that mirror their opinions, but are also willing to allow books that run counter to their opinions. It is the intolerant who will not allow viewpoints they don't agree with. I'm perfectly comfortable with permitting books such as Mein Kampf or Das Kapital or The Turner Diaries. But, then, ideas don't frighten me because I know how to handle them.

Am I to understand that yourself and others on this board would embrace this book in their collections with the same passion for "tolerance" as the book in question here? --tomeboy

Why ever should we not?

"Know your enemy; the first rule of war." --Robert Anson Heinlein.

How can I know what my enemy is, what bankrupt ideals he holds, if I can't examine his ideas for myself? I'm supposed to take your word for it? Believe George Bush or John Ashcroft? Rumsfeld? Not a chance.

Compare a woman who wants books about homosexuals removed from the children's section of the library to Nazis. [...] I wonder how many survivors of the Holocaust; how many from the prison camps; now many observant Jews you have offended with that remark. --mdoneil

Homosexuals were also sent to the concentration camps. The difference was, they were sent for "rehabilitation". You know -- to be "cured". Almost like so many misohomonist "Christians" think homosexuality can be cured today.

Aside from that, censorship is a hallmark of totalitarianism. I should examine the issue to see if censorship doesn't lead to totalitarianism as much as totalitarianism leads to censorship.

Hmm, persecuted, you mean systematically identified, detained, tortured and murdured. I guess we do that in the US. --mdoneil

There are certainly religious elements who would like to. The Republican Leadership Council challenged Robie Harris's It's Perfectly Normal due to a lack of intolerance, and the so-called Christian Reconstruction movement advocates death by stoning for fag & lezzies, heathens and pagans, "abortionists" (OBS/GYN physicians), . . . oh, yes, and disobedient children.

Oh, wait the government doesn't murder people because of their religion or perversion in this country. --mdoneil

Well, that's a philosophical argument. I for one certainly believe that George Bush's censorship program against sexual health information will consign to death a large number of sexually active people, both hetero- and homosexual, and that means in the Good Ol' U.S. of A. as much as in those African countries full of porch monkeys.

Thanks for reinforcing my view that the vast majority of Americans have no idea about history. --mdoneil

The larger problem is not those who haven't learned any history, it's those who will not learn the lessons of history. Santayana's aphorism cannot be denied.

I'm sure there is a group near your home who believes the Holocaust did not happen, ... --mdoneil

Most likely, and here's a clue for you in that regard: not all Holocaust deniers are neo-nazis, some of them are merely people who think for themselves and question the commonly held assertion from a viewpoint of scientific scepticism. These are people who are trying to understand instead of merely taking it on authority.

While there were certainly abuses of Fascism, as an ideology it certainly surpasses any other - assuming the abuse can be stemmed. --mdoneil

Ha! You totally blew that one, guy.

Fascism /n. 1 hist. the totalitarian principle and organization of the exreme right-wing nationalist movement in Italy (1922-43). 2 also (fascism) a any similar nationalist and authoritarian movement, esp German National Socialism. b derogatory any system of extreme right-wing or authoritarian views.

There isn't any question of fascism being a matter of abuse of the system. It is founded on extreme intolerance from the get go.

Fascist is the word du jour to describe anyone who won't let someone do what they want: ... --mdoneil

Only by simple-minded fools who don't know the power of words and have no understanding of personal freedom.

I get no specific legal protection for being Zoroastoran or whatever religion I might be, nor do I get any specific protection if I choose to eschew religion. --mdoneil

Another egregious piece of bovine scatology. You want legal protection? Try this on for size:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Wow what a leap. Goofy woman who wants no gay books in the library, to genocidal dictator. --mdoneil

Every genocidal dictator has enacted programs of censorship. Every genocidal dictator has taken it upon himself to decide what the people are allowed to read.

That being "tolerance" is a relative term. Each have you have responded with "intolerant" comments directed at me. I thank you all. --tomeboy

You play the wounded innocent so well, Tomeboy. I sincerely doubt, however, that you have any capacity to differentiate between intolerance and irritation. Here's a clue: anybody who says that a book is obscene because it does not preach that homosexuals are morally disordered and intrisically evil is not a tolerant person.

So you mean it does not really matter if there is stuff in the library that I don't like. Stuff that offends me? --mdoneil

If there is stuff that offends everybody then the playing field is level. Get over yourself. Your position is nothing more than a persecution complex.

Is it too much to ask to have librarians just buy books that provide entertaining, educational, and instructive material to the readers--rather than pushing radical agendas?!!! --commonsense

You mean dumbed down crap like Dick and Jane? I read that when I was seven years old. It bored me.

Short answer: yes, it is too much to ask.

Thought provoking answer: Isn't King and King entertaining, educational, and instructive? And why isn't that being allowed if it is?

I wonder how tolerant of censorship they would be if a non-christian objected to the library having christian materials in its collection. --tangognat

The answer is: not at all, of course. The one time the Bible was challenged as hate literature and pornography, it was defended on grounds of historicity and spirituality. Arguments that avail naught when the bible-thumpers are trying to burn books.

However Fascism could work, but the dictators that attempted Fascism failed to follow the doctorine and became egotistical madmen. --mdoneil

Fascism could never work. It's not a question of the system being abused by madmen, it's a question of the anti-libertarianism environment which would chafe at the human spirit until free people overthrew the system. (Being free starts with an attitude.)

I do however espouse strong autocratic control as one of your definitions states. --mdoneil

Then move to a country that has such control. Why do you stay in a free country like the U.S. when you are equally free to leave it? Iran will take you in. Turkmenistan seems to be overrun by the remnants of the Taliban and is going the same way Afghanistan did under their rule. Saudi Arabia, Malyasia, and Indonesia are all censorious regimes, although not so intolerant of homosexuals that fags and lezzies will be stoned in those places. The High Holy State of China will be more than happy to monitor your internet use to
make sure you don't suffer from ideological contamination.

Can't add too much here but methinks she should avoid these books. The books are not obscene. They are not read at a forced story hour. She really should prepare before she starts reading the book to her kids.

People seem to think that it is wrong for parents to be concerned about this issue. The issue goes beyond purchase of books that support a lifestyle the problem is that the books are aimed at children to accept that lifestyle. There are two different issues, civil rights and agenda issues. In terms of civil rights, no American has a right to discriminate agianst anyone and deprive them of their rights. Gay people should not be attacked, or discriminated against in places like the work place, public services, etc. The problem is acceptance of their lifestyle. People are against gay life style not in the same way they are against ethnic groups. Vietnamese, Cambodians, and African Americans live traditional family lives. Gay lifestyle is still open to debate. The two are not comparable. What is objectionable is the attempt to create a "situation on the ground" of acceptance. People can be offended by gay lifestyle and not be bigots. It is not the job of libraries to force feed the issue.

Holy cow tomeboy, how do you even make it through the day being offended by so many other people? If I was that bothered by the outside world I think I'd just give up and hide in my basement.

"isn't this really a parenting issue?"

NOT REALLY. Sure, parents should, and can, and do, monitor their children's reading habits--otherwise this mother would have never known her child had this book.

But again, the issue is "safety". If the "public" library is not a safe place for the "public", then it is no longer a "public" library but a library OF, BY, AND FOR the special interests of the librarians who run it.

"The issue is, "Is the library safe for my kids?"... fair 'nuff, let's go with that as an issue.Then my question is, how does this book make it unsafe for my kids? Or I suppose, in this case, how does this book make it unsafe for your kids?