An Anonymous Patron sends “this piece about parent concerns about books with gay characters available at the Mid-Columbia (WA) Library District from the Tri City Herald.
‘Kristine Claybrook doesn’t want to be surprised when she reads to her two children in the public library and finds gay-oriented characters or themes in a book.
“We feel the library should be a safe place for our children to browse without being exposed to this sort of lifestyle,” said the 26-year-old mother. Her strong faith in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints anchors her and her family’s values, she said.'”
Parent Concern
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.
Re:Parent Concern vs. stealth agendas
Yep–right on!! The public is the “public” in “public library”!!
Even though internet filters are 90-90% effective, they can’t block stealth librarians!!
Articles about stealth librarians
Re:Parent Concern
I have absolutely no problem with a parent that gets upset that her child has been exposed to this type of material. If she thinks it’s inappropriate for her child, that’s fine with me.
The problem is that she seems to think that it’s inappropriate for all children. It seems to me that these books serve two purposes: teaching tolerance (or “acceptance”, as Eli says), and validating experience. It seems to me that a title like “King and king” is primarily serving the “tolerance” mission, while “Heather has two mommies” is about vailidating the experience of a child that is different from everybody else that she knows.
In fact, the linked article even includes a quote from a city resident who is grateful for such library materials so that her daughter can see that two mommies isn’t completely freakish.
Of course, the quoted pervert probably doesn’t really live in such a normal conservative Christian community and was just parachuted in by the library system to provide a rationale for buying queer recruitment materials.
what is “lifestyle,” “tradition?”
I’m sorry. I’m not sure what you mean by “their lifestyle.” That’s a mightily broad brush you’re painting with, Eli. It’s stereotyping of the worst sort, really. If you object to homesexuality, per se, come out and say it. Most gay people I know have lifestyles that are pretty similar to mine–they have jobs, stable, long-term relationships, some have children, some are devout Christians, some are teetotalers. I find nothing objectionable about this. If you are squeamish about books about the sex part of homosexuality portrayed in children’s books, that’s cool. But I’ve yet to see any family-themed books in any children’s room that peek into mom and dad’s (or mom and mom’s) bedroom.
I also take issue with your statement that people in ethnic groups live “traditional family lives.” What is a traditional family life? Whose tradition? I grew up in a heterosexual, two-parent family. I had a father who binge drank and was frequently late coming home or AWOL for days at a time. A nice guy and all, but no Ward Cleaver. My best friend grew up in a two-parent hetero house, but she got whipped with a belt and had a mother who was regularly unfaithful. Tell me, please, what a traditional family life is, and show me a one-block stretch anywhere in America where that standard exists or ever existed.
Re:Parent Concern
How? In what possible way can you be intolerant and still not be bigoted? This issue isn’t just about Ms. Claybrook’s personal offense, it is about her intimating that the rest of us should be denied the opportunity to learn tolerance and to teach it to our children. That goes beyond the matter of being personally offended, and attempts to export that personal offence into society at large. A non-bigoted person who is offended by homosexuality can simply refrain from supporting homosexuals, and can even express their opinion about the subject without infringing on our right to access information about it. Non-bigots generally operate on a philosophy of live and let live. The intolerant do not, and the signs and symptoms of intolerance include attacking “hidden agendas”.
My advice to Ms. Claybrook is that she:
1) Ask the librarian what books might contain homosexuality issues;
2) read prospective books for herself before reading them to her child;
3) find some tried and true books that don’t contains such material and stick to them. Dr. Seuss, for instance, and the Berenstain Bears picture books.
Contrary to the popular consensus of reality among religious and political conservatives, there is no conspiracy to force this stuff on people against their will. Such social movements are the province of the ultra-conservative and intolerant themselves.
Re:what is “lifestyle,” “tradition?”
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I will say that if the insistence on gay rights causes a backlash that enables Bush to win reelection, I will not forgive those gay activists for a long time to come.
People can be offended by gay lifestyle…
“People can be offended by gay lifestyle and not be bigots.“
I am posting this quote so someone can moderate it as funny, surely Eli was making a joke, right?
Maybe we don’t use the same dictionary, maybe in bizarro dictionary bigot means something different.
individual vs society
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.
We seperate children’s books from adult’s for a reason. 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.
Society does tolerate homosexual behavior on an individual basis, as do libraries. But when that behavior begins to encroach on society, when it demands to be taught in schools, when it demands to be made a legitmate option as a family, a building block of society, then people have a right to take a stand against it.
Many of us believe that mothers and fathers matter and that model should be promoted above all else to ensure a strong and healthy community.
You as an individual are free to do as you wish up until it affects us as a whole. That is not bigoted it is society’s self-preservation. Libraries answer to society not the individual.
Re:individual vs society
This is very well put.
Another angle
To look at it a slightly different way: isn’t this really a parenting issue? Parents should by all means have control over what books, TV, etc. their young children are seeing. The mother in the article is holding the library responsible for something that is her own responsibility. 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. It’s not as though someone else is reading these books to her children against her will. If she is worried about content, she should read the books herself first before reading them to her children. It is not the library’s responsibility to do parents’ jobs for them.
“Intolerance ” is PC Branding
No, I’m not a racist, misogynist, senior basher, or gay hater.
Don’t confuse tolerance with acceptance. Furthermore don’t twist intolerance with bigotry. You can hate the sin but love the sinner. Frankly I’m surprised the free thinking Fang has bought into the PC speak of bigot branding with “intolerance� labeling.
Re:Back to the issue…
The issue is, “Is the library safe for my kids?”
The parents who are complaining assert that it is not. 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.
Parents, on the other hand, assume that their tax dollars are supporting a “safe” place for their kids to read and check out books. In this case, it is not… for them.
Re:individual vs society
Right on!! Who cares what happens in someone else’s bedroom, but to push it upon the remainder of society — as this particular issue is so widely promoted — does bring opposition.
Re:”Intolerance ” is PC Branding
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.
Re:Another angle – not really.
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.
Re:Back to the issue…
“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?
Re:individual vs society
>>A library should buy these books if they have people in their community who want them.
I’d be surprised if there is a “community” anywhere in America that would be completely against any one book. Would you have us suffer from the tyranny of the majority, or worse, the vocal minority in all collection development decisions? Many, MANY books will offend, I’d say it’s almost impossible to avoid NOT offending someone. Just because this is the most offensive issue to some Christian’s now doesn’t mean libraries should avoid it.
>>Keeping them in a separate section satisfies the rest of the community who don’t.
Are you really advocating for separate sections in libraries based on who would be offended by the content? Christian books on the right side of the library, everything else on the left perhaps?
>>We separate children’s books from adult’s for a reason. 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.
I disagree, there will be NO topics available to MY kids without me being involved.
>> Society does tolerate homosexual behavior on an individual basis, as do libraries.
>> But when that behavior begins to encroach on society, when it demands to be taught
>> in schools, when it demands to be made a legitimate option as a family, a building
>> block of society, then people have a right to take a stand against it.
“IT?” Run, hide, IT’S coming! IT’S after us!
Re:Back to the issue…
In this case, it is not… for them.
The library is one of the most dangerous government buildings that’s open to the public.
Some vs All Re:individual vs society
“I disagree, there will be NO topics available to MY kids without me being involved.”
That’s highly unlikely. Its not possible to protect children from everything. No filter is perfect, not even the parent filter. But we still use the filters for a reason.
And yes “It” is.
Re:People can be offended by gay lifestyle…
I’m trying to understand your application of the word “bigot” to Eli’s quote. Do you have a definition of “bigot” in mind similar to M-W one above? Would the above definition be sufficient to consider those who object to homosexuality “bigots”?
Re:Another angle – not really.
Last time I checked gays & lesbians were a part of the “public” that public libraries serve. Therefore those “special interests” are actually interests of that segment of the community.
It IS a parenting issue, and this woman does NOT have the right to parent any child but her own (or those she has legal guardianship over). She has no right to parent or censor what my child reads. I do. (Okay I would if I had any.) Where does it stop? What if she objected to interracial marriages and was offended by a book that showed that?
Whether anti-gay rights folks like it or not, gays are part of our society, of our public and they have the right to see themselves reflected in the library collection as much as any other minority. Oh, and just how many picture books does this particular library have that reflect gay families? Probably not a lot, so I don’t see how it’s making the library unsafe.
Although, really, with all the ideas that exist in the books in the library…it’s never been all that safe, has it??
s/
Re:Some vs All Re:individual vs society
You need to reconsider your label. You’re not a conservative, you’re a fascist.
segregating books
Following the mentality displayed here, libraries of the 1950s America should have segregated any books that showed interracial interaction of any kind. Many “conservative” Americans told us how dangerous interacting with those “colored” people was to their children.
Re:”Intolerance ” is PC Branding
Blake, I tolerate….and smile.
In response to your question, I suspect it would be much more difficult for me to embrace a Pollyanna worldview than to honestly assess what I consider “offensive” behaviors. That said, the fact remains that intolerance does not equal bigotry nor does tolerance equate to acceptance.
They probably did Re:segregating books
… and it was wrong of them to do so. 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. While skin color is irrelevant to social interaction your gender is not. And while there has been inter-racial families of one kind or another throughout history the same cannot be said of gays.
And yes conservatives did say such things, so did liberals, ask Gore’s dad. I don’t say such things and I’m not going to let a fake sense of guilt cloud my judgement on this issue.
Re:Parent Concern
If it bothers you move to Utah or some place that shares your values.
Why do people always think that because they practice a certain religion that gives them the right to impose their beliefs on everyone else? And, make no mistake, that’s what’s going on here. This Mormon mother wants the library “sanitized” so that it will be safe for kids.
No different than what the Nazis wanted in 1935. Burn all the books by the Jews so the good little Aryan boys and girls won’t have their precious little minds polluted. Different place, different time, same old garbage.
Re:People can be offended by gay lifestyle…
Does this mean that one who opposes homosexuality is a bigot? I did not conduct a rally against gays, or write an editorial against gays, or anything else to create an intolerant climate for individual gay Americans. I respect the constitution. All I am saying is that how we view male and female relationship is crosscultural and is as old as the world. One cannot automatically make a relationship that is single gender mainstream with the wave of the wand. 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. Advocating through books is taking the matter “to the streets” and that has never been a way to solve problems. I think that passionate advocacy for homosexual equality is not equated to the work of the civil rights movement. 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.
Interesting….I remember hearing….
not so long ago that to raise our children “It Takes a Village.”
Re:They probably did Re:segregating books
Why was it wrong? You said:
“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.”
So, by your own words, it’s OK to segregate books that the majority don’t approve of others reading. I’m assuming it would have been just fine with you for people to segregate depictions of interracial relationships if the majority opposed them. Atthe time, in most places, interracial relationships were illegal! Following your logic, we would have a duty to protect our children from illegal behavior!
Re:People can be offended by gay lifestyle…
Eli: I’m going to assume you are not gay. Would you care to share why we should consider you an expert on what gay people have and have not suffered due to the attitudes of the Moral Majority?
Gay themed books
Forgive me. I thought libraries were places where ideas in the form of books, newspapers and periodicals were “free” for anyone to explore. As a Black man, do “white power” books bother me? Yes, but I would never, ever think about removing them from the library.
We should be in the business of promoting the free exercise of ideas for adults and children, not slamming the library because one individual disagrees with the ideas in a book.
Re:Parent Concern
I’m not offended by the gay lifestyle. I think homosexuality is disgusting. Then again I think liver and onions is disgusting. I’m sure homosexuals really don’t care what I think.
Yes I am a bigot, not just about homosexuals, but about people who choose to be stupid, people who are loud and obnoxious, people who smell bad in public.
I don’t hit them, or call them names or treat them any differently than anyone else, but I wouldn’t put them on my guest list for when the Pope comes over for lunch.
Big freaking deal, I am a bigot, so is everyone else they just make up nonsense reasons about lifestyle or social circle, or say “I do have a black friend.”
Come off it you are all as bigoted as I am, and you all want books that mirror your opinion in the public library. Well, sorry its not going to happen.
If you don’t want you kids reading about homosexuals, liberals, blacks, left-handed people, or any other group of freaks then go to the library with them and look at the books first.
See problem solved, now lets move on to something more difficult. We need to have world peace completed by the end of the week.
Re:Gay themed books
I respect your opinion however those white power books you mention are targeted for adults, not children.
Consider the local KKK chapter decision to introduce, “Why Blackies are Bad People”, targeted specifically at the 4 to 8 demographic. Replete with lovable albeit racist characters, enticing illustrations and engaging storylines that depict negroes as shufflin’ Stepin Fetchit’s, porch monkeys, and a burden for good white folks.
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?
Re:Parent Concern
I love it when things get to this extreme. Compare a woman who wants books about homosexuals removed from the children’s section of the library to Nazis.
I think it is really hilarious that people can blow things so far out of proportion.
I wonder how many survivors of the Holocaust; how many from the prison camps; now many observant Jews you have offended with that remark.
I am certain many people would give up their books before their lives. I know I would. I can rebuild my library, but once I am tortured, murdered, and creamated it is pretty much over.
You people really need to get a grip.
Re:what is “lifestyle,” “tradition?”
I’ll take them all out for cocktails and a show !
Re:Parent Concern
I think it is a fair comparison. Nazis persecuted homosexuals too.
Re:Parent Concern
Hmm, persecuted, you mean systematically identified, detained, tortured and murdured. I guess we do that in the US.
Oh, wait the government doesn’t murder people because of their religion or perversion in this country.
Thanks for reinforcing my view that the vast majority of Americans have no idea about history. I’m sure there is a group near your home who believes the Holocaust did not happen, if you can’t find them look for the people who think the moon landing was faked, they generally are near one another in the half vacant strip mall. You should join up. Or you could go to the library and read a book about it. Ask the librarian for something authoratative though, you never know what trash they have in libraries these days.
Re:individual vs society
I care what goes on in other people’s bedrooms. People need to stop using that cliche. Rapes, murders, child molestations all occur in bedrooms too. So does a lot of sleeping I assume.
How about who cares what happens between consenting adults?
Re:Interesting….I remember hearing….
The community is, of course, a factor in the lives of its members, including children–that’s more or less what community means, after all. But that doesn’t mean that parents don’t have both the right and responsibility to make final decisions regarding their own children. The library should do its part by providing the widest possible range of materials for its patrons. Adults can each choose which of these materials are useful and which to ignore. And parents can make those same choices for their children.
Re:Parent Concern
Interesting that you bring up religion. It’s been said that homosexuals don’t deserve to be protected legally because they “choose to be gay” and they aren’t born that way, like one is born a minority or a woman. Yet, when it comes to religion, which people freely change all the time, we give it the same level of legal protection that we do race, gender and age. Don’t you consider that a bit of a double-standard?
Re:Gay themed books
Tome
I will not speak for others, just me as a librarian. Yes, I would advocate books like “little black sambo” or “Huck Finn” or books from ultra-conservatives/super liberals.
Having said that, I do not think that the gay themed book we are talking about had homo-erotic images or suggested that hetros were nasty people. Gay couples with children exist, to not have books that represent that fact of life is hiding your head in the sand.
By the way, BET was created because everything else was the equal of WET. MTV should have been called WMTV because they did not play any videos from Black artist until Billie Jean by Michael Jackson. (Perhaps they knew he was becoming white 🙂 )
Re:Gay themed books
None of the gay-themed children books that I have seen depict straights as the equivalent of nasty racial stereotypes. Yet, that is what you analogy imples. Do you want to try again with that?
Re:Gay themed books
It says more about tome than anything that he equates books showing children of gay couples as the equivalent of books by the KKK with nasty racial stereotypes. It speaks volumes about your mentality sir.
Re:Parent Concern
I find this really amazing. The original poster has a valid point. The parent, who practices a certain philosophy, is insistent that the library, a public institution, cleanse its collection to conform to her philosophical beliefs. The poster’s comparision to Nazis is right on. Then intolerance of the replies to the point of view is amazing.
What the woman is requesting is no different than what the communists did in Russia or Pol Pot in Cambodia or Mussolini in Italy or Hitler in Germany. In each case the state cleansed the libraries of views that disagreed with the dominant philosophy. In this case it is an individual not the state asking for the cleansing, but the idea stands.
The library is a public forum. No one individual has a right to insist that a publicly funded institution conform its collection to his or her personal philosophical values. I think that was the point the original poster was making — before he or she was drowned out by bigots
Re:Some vs All Re:individual vs society
I am a Fascist,(well a Phalangist) few people are truly Fascists. There is no Fascist party organized in the US. Although the Spanish Falangist party would be the closest thing.
While there were certainly abuses of Fascism, as an ideology it certainly surpasses any other – assuming the abuse can be stemmed.
Fascist is the word du jour to describe anyone who won’t let someone do what they want: My teacher is a Fascist, she made me turn in my paper by the due date even though I had a cold; That guy wouldn’t let me merge, Fascist; I can’t get married to my same sex partner because of the Fascist government.
Many uninformed people use Fascist in ways totally inappropriate. There is nothing wrong with being a conservative, there is nothing wrong with being a Fascist. There are grave concerns about our society with its need to validate everyone and tolerate every behavior no matter how outrageous. Look at today’s children as opposed to those from a generation ago. Basic literary and numerary skills that children posessed a generation ago are seldom found in many of today’s children and teens. Someone needs to set some rules and standards. I think that Falangists (or Fascists) could do that, and be beneficial to workers, the elderly, the infirm and all members of society.
Some of us don’t consider being called a Fascist a bad thing. We don’t think the same way about liberal or socialist, terms applicable to some of the posters here.
Re:Parent Concern
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. The protections granted on the basis of religion apply to everyone, both those who choose to practice and those who choose not to practice. You can’t not be hired at Pizza Hut because you are agnostic.
Although many localities have passed laws that prohibit discrimination based on how people manipulate their genitals, there is no Federal protection for homosexuals, or for that matter heterosexuals.
There are Federal laws that protect people from discrimination based on their age, gender or race.
I am afraid I fail to see your point. I assume you thought you had one.
You all have proven my point
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.
Hilarious
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.
Re:People can be offended by gay lifestyle…
Amazing!
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.
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.
Shot, knifed, dragged behind trucks, beaten up. I guess those don’t count.
Re:Gay themed books
>>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.
Re:You all have proven my point
tome
I do not my comments were “intolerant” of your feelings or beliefs.
Re:Another angle – not really.
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:) ]
Re:Another angle – not really.
So you mean it does not really matter if there is stuff in the library that I don’t like. Stuff that offends me?
Exactly… If you do not like the book, then do not read it.
Re:Another angle – not really.
Of course if I don’t read it I wont’t know it offends me.
I’m off to borrow Catch-22
Re:Parent Concern – back to the original issue
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.
Re:Another angle – not really.
I understand what you saying but I do not think that libraries should be motivated to not buy books because they may offend someone in the community. If we did that, there would not any books or libraries.
I personally I think that your feelings matter. But I think that your “feelings” should not dictate collection development policy. My political, religious or racial beliefs SHOULD not play a role. (of course it does but it should not be an overwhelming factor)
Re:Parent Concern – back to the original issue
Well, if you feel that books are purchased because of a librarian’s “agenda” you have no idea of how libraries operate. In most, I would say all cases, collections are developed according to a carefully thought out collection development policy — created with input from a variety of sources including, in the case of public libraries, by the board of trustees — who are the public representatives. In our society that is how we’ve organized people having their “say” about the public library. If you don’t like the policies of the board — throw them out at the next election and get people who share your views voted in.
As for the rest of this argument: It’s silly. If the parent doesn’t feel the materials are suitable don’t let her children read them. Read them herself first. Don’t let your children go to the library. What shouldn’t happen, in a democracy, is that the views of a small religious fringe group should decide what everyone else reads. That is wrong.
We have free choice. If the woman is uncomfortable with the library she can either have it changed (see above) or find another library whose views and policies are more to her liking.
Re:Gay themed books – you missed the point!!
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.
Re:Parent Concern – back to the original issue
Yes, they do. The question is how much say?
Re:Some vs All Re:individual vs society
Help me out here, mdoneil, whoever you are. Just what do you mean by “fascist”? Do either of Merriam-Webster’s definitions apply?
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.
Re:Autocratic
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?!!!
Bingo!
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.
Autocratic?
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.
Re:what is “lifestyle,” “tradition?”
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.
Re:Some vs All Re:individual vs society
Sorry, but I have some murdered ancestors who (if alive) just may disagree with you about any positive aspects to the ideology of Fascism. I sure do. Some of you boys are increasingly dangerous.
Re:”Intolerance ” is PC Branding
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.
People can be offended by gay lifestyle…
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.
Re:Some vs All Re:individual vs society
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.
Re:Another angle – not really.
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.
MLK and gay rights
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.”
Wielding that Powerful “Intolerance” Stick
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.
Re:You all have proven my point
>>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.
Re:Some vs All Re:individual vs society
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?
Re:the difference is tax dollars
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.
Who Has Polygamy Literature for Children
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.â€?
“Unique” is certainly an appropriate description in comparison to other titles held in WorldCat such as “Heather Has Two Mommies”.
Re:the difference is tax dollars
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?
Re:Who Has Polygamy Literature for Children
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”!!!
Fascism (Falangism really)
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.
Omnibus reply to various and sundry points
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?
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.
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”?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
The child did not have the book, the mother was reading it to her.
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.
Bosh. Being a homosexual no more invalidates you as a parent than being Black or Jewish does.
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.
Yes, a village; not a borg collective. A village. One with a number of diverse thinking individuals.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Only by simple-minded fools who don’t know the power of words and have no understanding of personal freedom.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.)
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.
Re:Wielding that Powerful “Intolerance” Stick
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.
Re:Omnibus reply to various and sundry points
Ahhh, the great Omnibus has spoken!!
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.
Re:Who Has Polygamy Literature for Children
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.
Re:Who Has Polygamy Literature for Children
Of course YOU don’t have an “agenda”! LOL!
Re:Omnibus reply to various and sundry points
Yesireebob! BIG secular humanist conspiracy! “Commonsense”: Tom Paine must be rolling over in his grave.
Here’s my Personal Favorite
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?
Re:the difference is tax dollars
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?
Re:Here’s my Personal Favorite
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.
Re:Here’s my Personal Favorite
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?
Debunked………again
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.Sack not…
Mr.Straw
Re:Mr.Sack not…
Let’s hope you work for a private library and are not wasting tax dollars when you should be working…
Maybe she should avoid the book…..
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.