S/O Book Banning

[Just a Jen in Mississippi]

I'm not against booking banning either because I can choose what I want to read or not. BUT, I am against book stores having inappropriate, sexually explicit books where kids can view them.

[KidsHappen]

hmm. firstly we should be careful bandying about the words "adult movies".

Frankly, THAT is a whole other topic. I am not okay with any 8 yr old sitting down to watch Debbie Does Dallas at some XXX peep show anymore than I'd be okay with them buying a hooker.:ohmy::svengo: In most places those things have their own little building with an "only over 21 years old" admission policy. And I'm very glad for that.

 

However, my older kids have watched some movies that were rated R. Pan's Labyrith, Batman Beyond (I think?). My dh and I watched all movies first and decide for ourselves if it's appropriate for any or all of the kids.

 

As for future abilities. hmmm, I can see that reasoning for restricting movies/video games, but not books.

 

But freedom isn't based on future ability. Either one has it or one doesn't. :001_huh:Just because one segment of society doesn't think a freedom worth using doesn't mean they are right to make that call for the rest of society?

 

 

I absolutely agree with every thing you have said here.

 

First of all, you are right. I did not consider my choice of words carefully enough on the first point because that never even entered my mind. I have no problem with age restrictions on movies with adult content or themes (ie. - NC 17, and R rated movies). Nor do I have a problem with a parents making the choice to let a child watch these sorts of movies. I will elaborate further on restricting movies as opposed to books in post to Jill below.

 

I also absolutely agree that no one has a right to make the call regarding adult freedoms for the rest of society but I think that we can all agree that in our society children do not have the same legal rights and freedoms that adults do.

 

I appreciate your posts in this thread as you have articulated many of my opinions and arguements and saving me the trouble of posting them myself. You have also stated them better than I would have. Thanks.

[Mekanamom]

I'm not against booking banning either because I can choose what I want to read or not. BUT, I am against book stores having inappropriate, sexually explicit books where kids can view them.

 

Yes, in the bookstore I worked for, the sexuality section was located on the top shelf in the psychology section. Even adults oftentimes had to request a bookseller's help to get the books down.

 

I think most of the major bookstores are probably very careful about where books of that nature are placed.

 

The problem is that some customers, either simply immature or something worse, would "re-shelve" those books in the children's section on purpose. I imagine the same thing happens in libraries.

 

It's just a thing you have to deal with if you work with books. I think those types of books have their place, and should not be banned. But it's important to constantly be on the lookout and remove adult books from the children's section.

 

Booksellers and library staff do their best, of course, but there is nothing as effective as good old parental supervision.

[Murphy101]

This is exactly my point, lol. I'm going to try and go back over my posts, and see where I've said otherwise, but...as I said above, I'm just feeling as if what I'm saying isn't really being understood, so, I'm off to school the kids! :D

 

I thought I pointed it out.

You keep using the words "restrict" or "prohibit"?

In other words, if the parent doesn't give clear permission, either across the board or per item, then that materials' access will be denied to the child?

That's the part I disagree with.

 

I think labeling is enough.

If the parent wants to deny it to their kids, then they need to step up and do so on their own, rather than have a librarian or book seller do it for them.

 

It was perceived by me that your opinion was that the reverse should be true. That a parent should have to actually give permission to avoid having it denied to their kids?

 

I also absolutely agree that no one has a right to make the call regarding adult freedoms for the rest of society but I think that we can all agree that in our society children do not have the same legal rights and freedoms that adults do.

 

Agreed. Thank goodness.

 

In this situation, I'm referring to parental rights, not children rights. Parents have the right to let their kids read anything and everything if they want. I do not agree with their choice to do so. I do not avail myself of that right. But I do not feel it proper to deny that right to other parents.

 

The problem is that some customers, either simply immature or something worse, would "re-shelve" those books in the children's section on purpose. I imagine the same thing happens in libraries.

 

Agreed. They can't always be everywhere at all times and sometimes things don't get put where they should. Heaven knows thatas a mother of 8, I can understand this problem!:D

[KidsHappen]

...I'm feeling at a loss because I don't believe my posts/comments are being understood. I don't know any other way to state what I've been saying, so I'm guessing that it's just not going to be heard. What you've pegged as my concern isn't my concern at all; making sure parents have some authority left is what my main concern is.

 

At our library, the kids have to have a card that's 'authorized' by a parent. They don't get cards without parents. If something incurs a fine, the parent is ultimately responsible. What's the big deal about signing something at that time for kids under, say, 13 that says, "They can check out anything they want?"

 

 

 

Well, again, I'm pointing to movies. I know you said that you don't consider them the same, but quite frankly, I don't understand how the exact same content in a book isn't as concerning as a movie. You also said that you just don't see a bunch of really questionable material being available at a public library, but I don't agree. This sort of thing has become a battleground; folks feel the need to ban books (which, I know won't be noticed, but I've never said that I support; I just don't see labeling and restricting children's access as the same as true censorship) and other folks feel the need to make a statement, and ensure that anything is available to anyone.

 

Does Harry Potter have content that equals a rated R movie? All I'm talking about is a similar standard as that used for rating systems for movies. I know you mentioned that "There are very few adult movies that have any redeeming value what-so-ever", but...well, that's a matter of opinion, isn't it? Then we aren't having a discussion about freedom to have access to any manner of art, or 'restriction', or 'censorship'...we're just talking about making sure any and all books are available to anyone, of any age. I don't get making such a particular distinction, if we're talking about rights and access.

 

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. As I said, I don't really feel that I'm being understood, so I'll probably bow out, and call it quits; as much as I love discussing this subject, I'm leery of making too many folks mad, lol.

 

I agree that parents should have authority over their children but in this particular instance they can exercise that authority by controlling their child's access to a library card if it is a concern to them. Personally, I don't necessarily agree with most parents censoring decisions but I fully support their right to make those decisions. I have essentially already signed a consent form by providing the library card and don't feel that I should have to sign something additional stating that this is in fact my intention.

 

 

I do agree that the content and merits of various books and movies are a matter of opinion. I wasn't arguing for freedom of access for all manner of art. I was specifically discussing banning books. As I have stated, I don't see books and movies as being equal. In my opinion, the differences between a movie and a book are many. Reading is an active activity that requires well reading, comprehending, interpreting, visualizing. Watching a movie is a passive activity that requires none of the above. I think that we can agree that watching Harry Potter was not the same as reading the book. Also visual images are different that mental images and may present more disturning images than a child may imagine on their own.

 

 

And as I stated above, I don't believe that children are entitled to the same legal rights and freedoms as adults. And of course lets not forget the whole quagmire of deciding what books will be restricted and who will make those decisions.

 

I am not getting mad at all. I believe that I understand you, I just don't agree and I am fine with agreeing to disagree. And while I usually don't feel the need to state that I disagree with someone, I feel strongly about this issue and felt that my opinion was not already represented in this thread. I mean no offense and I certainly haven't taken any. I hope that you feel the same way. :)

[Tree House Academy]

I am all for a family choosing to "ban" a book in their own household. I personally do not want my kids to read the Golden Compass books. However, the thought of anyone banning a book from publication (like Harry Potter, for instance) - especially someone from the Government having the say on that...ummm it is all a bit too Big Brother for me.

[Mrs Mungo]

I am all for a family choosing to "ban" a book in their own household. I personally do not want my kids to read the Golden Compass books.

 

At what age? Those really aren't kid books, they are written over the heads of young kids. But will you really censor your the reading of your teens to that extent? To the extent of censoring *ideas* rather than content? I don't think I could do that...even if I do disagree with the supposed message. They really weren't great books though, Pullman is a terrible storyteller, imo.

[sunshine]

I think all pornography should be banned. In books, in magazines on billboards everywhere.

 

Anything that causes sexual thoughts or tensions should not be where it can infect a child or young person.

 

Before you have a cow and call me a prude, (and I really don't care if you do, just hate people to waste time) understand that I believe that the body is beautiful, natural yada, yada yada... but it should be private. I am sick of the wasted lives, wasted on the internet sites full of sex that occupy so many young people, the texting they do with perverted messages, the TV shows you can't risk channel surfing between commercials on MONK or Murder She Wrote, or Scooby Doo, because some idiot may be humping someone on a TV show at 8pm at night.

 

I believe that if pornography were banned, crime would reduce, unwanted children would reduce, domestic violence and divorce would reduce. Grades would increase and I could watch Scooby Doo with my 5 yr old in peace and my Eagle Scout son could staff summer camp without coming home with a broken heart for the 12 year olds that wanted him to be proud of them for watching porno websites and text messages. Oh my I could rant for hours.....

[Kris]

In our local library, they had a large book sale and, when I asked why they were selling the books, they said -- and this is a direct quote! -- "Because books are going out of style and we want to make more room for videos, DVDs, and books on tape" :glare:

 

Huh? :confused:

 

You know, I understand this is the computer age and it *seems* that everyone is "plugged in" but that's really not the case. Our power was just out for two days, and videos, DVDs and books on tape were *not* an option -- but I was happy as a clam and got more reading in during that time than in the last three months.

 

On the other hand, I do kind of understand why they would make that decision. The library we use is remodeling this year, and their internet access computers have been inaccessible for about six months. I haven't spent much time there, but when I *have* been there, it never fails that three or four people will go up to the desk, ask about the computers, and leave. Now I wonder if they even know there *are* books there?

[LilyK]

Some of my fondest memories as a kid are of my sister and I walking to the library (with no adult) and checking out loads of books. Of course there were some sexually explicit novels, and I have to admit a took an occasional peek-no serious harm done. But overall, the library was a safe place for kids, even without their parents.

 

What you guys call censoring or banning, I wish libraries would exercise it with some moderation. I think there is an extreme, reactionary hysteria when it comes to limiting access to books. So much so, that libraries are no longer a safe place for young kids to visit without parental supervision. Unfortunately, many kids have parents who work a lot (like mine did) and cannot frequent the library with them. Our local library is only open from 10 to 6, and when I start working, my kids will not be allowed to go by themselves and peruse through The Joy of xxxx. In this case, lack of reasonable censorship is limiting their intellectual growth much more than censorship ever has. It is sad. I know that those long hours spent in my beloved library really shaped who I am today.

 

(To be honest, my library does not actually have Joy of xxx, but it does have a very small section of those types of books.)

[OceanBreeze]

Banning is a harsh word and should be treated as such. If a book is bannned, none of us would be able to read it. The US has specific laws in place to keep that from happening. No wonder people get riled up at the word. Some of these library situations, however, while disturbing in terms of what is available to the public to read without requiring them to purchase the book, cannot be called banning. We must use a different term. But perhaps that wouldn't cause such a loud cry of "foul'.

 

Jenelle

[Mrs Mungo]

Banning is a harsh word and should be treated as such. If a book is bannned, none of us would be able to read it. The US has specific laws in place to keep that from happening. No wonder people get riled up at the word. Some of these library situations, however, while disturbing in terms of what is available to the public to read without requiring them to purchase the book, cannot be called banning. We must use a different term. But perhaps that wouldn't cause such a loud cry of "foul'.

 

Jenelle

 

You cannot call it "censorship" when it isn't the government but you can certainly say they are "banned" if people demand it is removed from the library or other public space. That is people imposing their values onto others and is fully deserving of the word "banned."

[Jill- OK]

You cannot call it "censorship" when it isn't the government but you can certainly say they are "banned" if people demand it is removed from the library or other public space. That is people imposing their values onto others and is fully deserving of the word "banned."

 

...calling it 'banned' when "people demand it is removed from the library or other public space" isn't correct, unless it is removed. (Many aren't...the request/demand is just made.)

 

The ALA uses the terms "banned" and "challenged" now, on their list, for this very reason, I think.

[Zelda]

I'm in the camp that isn't sure. My visceral reaction is , "Banning is bad", but I agree that I would not want to see Playboy or other clearly pornographic materials (I'm not even talking about arguable ones like, "Story of O") at my public library.

[j.griff]

fas·cist /ˈfæʃɪst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fash-ist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a person who believes in or sympathizes with fascism.

2. (often initial capital letter) a member of a fascist movement or party.

3. a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views.

–adjective

 

see definition number three.

[Sammy]

No book should be banned. BUT - just because a book is published does not mean I have to read it.

 

Exactly! Now if we could only apply this concept to other issues of conflict... :)

[j.griff]

LOL, I can see the new world peace campaign now, "MYOB" on banners throughout the world. Of course, the acronymn would be different in some countries.

[Audrey]

 

I do think libraries, and librarians, often quietly "ban" by refusing to accept or order certain books, especially in smaller towns.

 

 

Oooo... that's quite a weighty accusation. I'm a librarian in a tiny town. I am well acquainted with the librarians in many other small towns. I would not classify the choices we are forced to make as "banning."

 

Reality is --- small libraries have very limited space. We know our patrons and we strive to provide the books they most want and need. If we have no demand for a subject, or we feel we have a cursory representation already on a not-very-popular subject, then we are forced to make the decision not to add to the collection books which we know will take up valuable shelf space, yet produce little or no circulation.

 

Example: I just recently received a donation of beautifully contructed books from "Bridge Publications." Bridge published all the Scientology books. The box contained 19 books on Scientology. I put two in the collection because I had no Scientology books. The rest went to the sale table.

 

Now, these were perfectly lovely books, but I don't have any demand for them and I don't have room for them. My personal opinion of Scientology isn't really a factor.

 

We routinely received donations of books on subjects near and dear to the donor, but not necessarily of any expressed interest to our patron base in general. I do explain when people donate books, that if we cannot use them, they will go to the sale table and I ask if they are okay with that. If they aren't, I ask them to consider another source for their donation. I will not ever guarantee someone that their donations will be added to the collection. I have too many factors to consider in that decision to make that kind of claim.

 

Small libraries get a lot of flack from people for many reasons. For the most part, I believe they are doing the best they can with the limited space and budget they have. We can't all have the shelf space and purchasing power of the NY Public Library.

 

If you can prove your librarians have a beef against certain subjects, then fine. But maybe ask them if they have any demand for that subject. Maybe you are the only one who's ever asked for it. In which case, how can you expect a public library to spend its meager resources (time, space and money) on the collection development interests of one patron?

[Sammy]

I confess that I have thrown one book into the recycling bag rather than donate it to the library give-away shelf or the Goodwill.

I have done the same and don't consider it banning. Imo, a book I own is mine to share or not share, for whatever reason. That's not the same as obliterating it (altho' I must confess it would not upset me to see the ezzo and pearl books and their ilk disappear from print.)

 

Very good post, btw. :)

[lovemyboys]

What are your thoughts?

 

Even if you're against book banning across the board, are there books you *wish* you could ban?

 

Does it suppress ideas, or does it utterly fail to suppress ideas?

 

I just though I'd move this to a different thread, to focus on the topic, which is a good one.

 

How can we ban books when movies like Saw are produced and distributed and many people pay to go see them? That seems like a huge contradiction to want to ban Harry Potter or Tom Sawyer or ?? for magical ideas/witchcraft or some antiquated/not nice language or ?? when we live in a culture that supports in some measure products like the above mentioned movie. Not to mention the absolute tripe that exists.

 

Living in a metropolitan area reminds me that there is truly huge diversity in what people find enjoyable or entertaining or acceptable.

 

And I have the choice to participate or support or not.

 

That's where I fall on the whole issue of banning books. :001_smile:

[sunshine]

3. a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views.

–adjective

 

see definition number three.

 

Yep, now it's a hornets nest. I see it as the exact opposite. I feel like the left is trying to impose and dictate to me how to think and feel. I am told by the media, liberal democrats and extreme left wing that what I believe in is wrong and I should be ashamed for being a bigot. That if I am not "green, gay lifestyle promoting, big government guiding my child rearing (aka: send my kids to school, because it is dangerous to raise them in an unsocialized Christian (which means believing that Jesus Christ is God,hence the Christ in Christian)

environment.

 

Now, I looked up Fascism, Fascist in the "New International Webster's Collegiate Dictionary of the English Language" and the 1828 Webster's Dictionary and the Meriam Webster Dictionary online.

 

Not one of them listed Fascism as a "Far right" viewpoint. Only the Cambridge dictionary did and that should be self expanatory.

 

Fascim is in both parties today. You have mean spirited people who think that if you do not believe like you do that you have a right to mock, put down or make snide remarks or covert comments. Shame on both. I vehemently disagree with almost ALL democrats. Their policies, their way of life, their thought processes, their "religious" views. But I separate their views from their personhood. I believe that ALL men are created equal and have a right to freedom. That right spills over to their right to sin, to choose, to live however they want and to PEACEFULLY express their views.

 

I was raised a democrat when the democrats were true democrats, but I have been forced to be a Republican whose policies I am not that in tune with, because of the far left, extremist dogma that is forced on the public by the vocal minority. I, and I believe that I speak for all the forced Republicans, believe in your right to believe what you choose. I can feel sorry for you as you may feel sorry for me, but don't impose your atheism on me, I won't mock you and tell you how stupid you are not to believe in God, so don't tell me how stupid I am to believe in Him. Remember that most laws that protect you and your children were enacted by a Christian country. In paganistic societies, atheist societies and facist societies, women are subservient, uneducated, children are chattle, infancide is approved of, individual freedoms are stomped on and chaos reigns. I am particularly thinking of Amsterdam where everything is all right, but there are still Christian based laws governing most of the country, but it is losing the youth to drugs as they are legal.

 

My rambling point is this, my point of view should never cause harm, death, pain, humiliation to anyone. Your point should not ever cause death, harm or humiliation to another either. I believe in your right over your body, but I don't believe it should extend to the 4th month on of pregnancy. I am absolutely opposed to abortion, but I don't think that early trimester abortion should be denied safely to unbelievers. In my beliefs, they are going to hell anyway and all their life they should be comforted by believer's. Not screamed at or protested on. The raging abortion issue with me is the live abortions. The let them be born and then stick an instrument in the back of the head and kill the baby. Or the live eviseration of baby in utero of a fully formed baby (which happens at 10 weeks). If you have sex, use a 5 year shot of birth control if you don't want to get pregnant. Go into the neighborhoods and give the shot for free to young people on the side of the road. THEN you will see teen pregnancy go down. Do something useful.

 

If these laws were taken off the books you would see a coming together of right and left. Because that is one of the serious issues forcing would be democrats to the Republican side. Be reasonable. Do not take God off of a coin, if you don't believe in God, look at it like we look at the mythical gods, a pretty picture, saying etc. There was no Diana or Zeus (or so I believe and you know what that means), but leave the picture or saying for historical purpose. Don't mess with things to get your own way. I say we vote for a national committee made up of homeschool mothers to meet and find a meeting point in the middle for all of the moral issues. Then we will see which political party wins when there is only economic and foreign policy issues on the table. Til then, lets not be snide with each other and try to get a dig in on either political side. The definition thing was uncalled for. The first two definitions were sufficient, to point out the 3rd was juvenile. and name calling. oh yeah, same thing!

[Sammy]

I think all pornography should be banned. In books, in magazines on billboards everywhere.

 

Anything that causes sexual thoughts or tensions should not be where it can infect a child or young person.

 

Before you have a cow and call me a prude, (and I really don't care if you do, just hate people to waste time) understand that I believe that the body is beautiful, natural yada, yada yada... but it should be private. I am sick of the wasted lives, wasted on the internet sites full of sex that occupy so many young people, the texting they do with perverted messages, the TV shows you can't risk channel surfing between commercials on MONK or Murder She Wrote, or Scooby Doo, because some idiot may be humping someone on a TV show at 8pm at night.

 

I believe that if pornography were banned, crime would reduce, unwanted children would reduce, domestic violence and divorce would reduce. Grades would increase and I could watch Scooby Doo with my 5 yr old in peace and my Eagle Scout son could staff summer camp without coming home with a broken heart for the 12 year olds that wanted him to be proud of them for watching porno websites and text messages. Oh my I could rant for hours.....

I can understand some of your points, but I do believe you are giving pornography a lot more credit than it deserves.

[Mom to Aly]

Completely against book banning--now book throwing out--Moby Dick, definitely, just because I hate it, and would not want to subject someone else to it, but banning, no!

[j.griff]

wow, WTH? Did you just drink too much coffee for breakfast? BTW, I am not an atheist. I did not intend for that to be taken as a political 'punch'. Sorry you are feeling defensive. I haven't even been Posting on these boards for a while now. I come back and post a couple of things, and then you attack me personally by calling me juvenile. Wow. I don't think I like posting here. I have not been involved in any political threads, except this one, and I do believe the idea of banning information is a political idea. I am an anarchist, I abhor ALL forms of government. I think people are usually intelligent enough to 'govern' themselves without fascists (I think ALL politicians are fascists, see, we don't necessarily disagree there. :) ) interfering and controlling what we are allowed to do.

[Jenny in Atl]

I can understand some of your points, but I do believe you are giving pornography a lot more credit than it deserves.

 

It's always an easy sell to scare people with sex. People talk about the nanny state in less then shinning terms, but when it comes to this subject, they are all for it.

[Jenny in Atl]

I just noticed that Sammy was banned. Why? What did she say that was so awful? :confused:

[Reya]

What are your thoughts?

 

Even if you're against book banning across the board, are there books you *wish* you could ban?

 

Does it suppress ideas, or does it utterly fail to suppress ideas?

 

I just though I'd move this to a different thread, to focus on the topic, which is a good one.

 

There are an increasing number of books put into children's/YA sections that have NO business being there. Including one (I am NOT kidding here) that includes a graphic description of the rape of a 2-y-o by the mom's boyfriend--in the mother's presence and with her complicitness, to make it even more disgusting.

 

These should absolutely be banned from being marketed to children just as R-rated movies are banned from being marketed to children. This is NOT something that a minor should stumble upon accidentally in the children's/YA section--EVER. It is beyond inappropriate.

[Christy B]

I am not an atheist. I did not intend for that to be taken as a political 'punch'. . . I do believe the idea of banning information is a political idea. I am an anarchist, I abhor ALL forms of government. I think people are usually intelligent enough to 'govern' themselves without fascists (I think ALL politicians are fascists, see, we don't necessarily disagree there. :) ) interfering and controlling what we are allowed to do.

 

 

I will readily admit that the terms are not terribly familiar to me. Do you think that, really and truly, we are all one or the other? For example, I'm not sure that I am comfortable with the idea of absolutely zero government, but I certainly hate to think of myself as a fascist. I'd like to think I'm comfortably in the middle (I imagine most people feel that way). In your opinion, is that possible? Or do you think that eventually, every society ends up in one extreme or the other?

 

As far as how this relates to book-banning: Again, I think many of us may be confusing our terms, or how we use them. I was thinking of banning and censorship as pretty much the same thing, but as I read more, I'm starting to understand that they are different.

 

Government censorship of books, information, etc: I would see this as a dangerous step toward Fascism. And I would oppose it vehemently. If the government steps in today and censors/bans pornography (by whose definition?) it can step in tomorrow and censor/ban religious writings (again, by whose definition?). So, while my religious upbringing might make one *assume* that I would want pornography banned, I confound and confuse my dear parents by arguing that I do not want pornography banned -- I'm convinced that if one sector of the public can ban pornography, another sector of the public could ban the Westminster Shorter Catechism. So, if a Fascist could take away Penthouse, a Fascist could take away Pilgrim's Progress (and no, for everyone out there gasping in dismay, I am most certainly not comparing the moral or literary quality of the two publications).

 

This is, of course, addressing the definition of fascist in the "ultimate control" sense of the definition. I would have to study more before I could speak to the "right wing" definition. I do think history teaches us that absolute power corrupts absolutely . . . regardless of its "left" or "right" leaning.

 

Now, banning in the private sector . . . as in, a public outcry or majority vote removing a book from a *private* library or bookstore . . . I'm not sure I would consider that a step toward Fascism. I would consider that free market economics, and I don't think I have a problem with that. For example, I would raise a huge stink if my church bookroom started selling books by the Pearls. I would petition, beg, picket, whatever I could to get those books out of there because, frankly, we do enough to make ourselves look like idiots without adding the indignity of being associated with that sort of publication.

 

But, as distasteful as I find those books (for example) I still oppose any sort of government interference. Those books would still be available . . . but I would speak out against them in a *private* setting where I had any measure of influence. To me, there is a huge distinction.

 

So, in my stand on book banning (I'm trying to stay on topic with this thread) does that make me either an anarchist or a fascist? Neither? Both?

 

You've piqued my interest, and I'm thinking about where fascism and anarchy originated. Now, I've not had a chance to study this out, but I'm thinking way back to Biblical times, God expressly discouraged the nation of Israel to adopt "pagan" forms of government. If I understand my Old Testament correctly, the Israelites got themselves a king against God's wishes for them. Which leads me to looking at anarchy in a slightly different light . . . granted, by the New Testament, God's people were clearly told to respect the current secular government in place, so I'm not trying to make a plea for Biblical anarchy, I'm just saying -- I am trying to be careful not to judge the "morality" of a political position.

 

Anyhoo, that aside . . . if I understand the terms correctly, as they apply in modern times: both anarchy and fascism are *political* distinctions, yes? So, clearly, neither distinction would automatically make you atheistic; just as being a Republican doesn't automatically make you a Baptist, or being a Democrat doesn't automatically make you a Catholic. I share your frustration in being included in sweeping (and often inaccurate) generalizations.

[Reya]

I think you guys mean "totalitarianism," not only fascism. Big difference.

[Christy B]

I think you guys mean "totalitarianism," not only fascism. Big difference.

 

I'm starting to wish I had paid attention in political science.:001_huh:

[j.griff]

Christy, here's a link to some interesting reading regarding anarchy. http://www.apolitical.info/articles/display.php?art=003

It is not the evil and nihilistic chaos that many assume it is. I will have to dig more into my linkage for info on fascism. Right now, I'm off to do a family thing. :D

[5kidsforME]

Oooo... that's quite a weighty accusation. I'm a librarian in a tiny town. I am well acquainted with the librarians in many other small towns. I would not classify the choices we are forced to make as "banning."

 

Reality is --- small libraries have very limited space. We know our patrons and we strive to provide the books they most want and need. If we have no demand for a subject, or we feel we have a cursory representation already on a not-very-popular subject, then we are forced to make the decision not to add to the collection books which we know will take up valuable shelf space, yet produce little or no circulation.

 

Example: I just recently received a donation of beautifully contructed books from "Bridge Publications." Bridge published all the Scientology books. The box contained 19 books on Scientology. I put two in the collection because I had no Scientology books. The rest went to the sale table.

 

Now, these were perfectly lovely books, but I don't have any demand for them and I don't have room for them. My personal opinion of Scientology isn't really a factor.

 

We routinely received donations of books on subjects near and dear to the donor, but not necessarily of any expressed interest to our patron base in general. I do explain when people donate books, that if we cannot use them, they will go to the sale table and I ask if they are okay with that. If they aren't, I ask them to consider another source for their donation. I will not ever guarantee someone that their donations will be added to the collection. I have too many factors to consider in that decision to make that kind of claim.

 

Small libraries get a lot of flack from people for many reasons. For the most part, I believe they are doing the best they can with the limited space and budget they have. We can't all have the shelf space and purchasing power of the NY Public Library.

 

If you can prove your librarians have a beef against certain subjects, then fine. But maybe ask them if they have any demand for that subject. Maybe you are the only one who's ever asked for it. In which case, how can you expect a public library to spend its meager resources (time, space and money) on the collection development interests of one patron?

 

This is very kid of you. The last time I donated a bunch of books to my library the lady said "thank you, these will do very well on our sale shelves" I was to caught of guard to askfor them back. I had orignally wanted to sell them on ebay to make money.