In recent weeks there has been discussion at The Fora about certain controversies involving efforts, by local citizens and now by state legislatures, to remove items from school libraries. Since library controversies of all sorts are getting more common, and I myself am a librarian, I've felt a responsibility to share my own perspective on such matters. I've been trying for weeks to figure out what to say and how. Here's what I've come up with. For readability's sake, I'm dividing it into three posts. I'd ask that people read them all before responding.
Libraries usually exist to serve a particular school or other community's needs. Most librarians are strongly motivated by a desire to serve their communities. They'd rather be able to do this without the interference of particular forces, inside or especially outside the community, who are trying to advance particular agendas. I doubt I welcome the idea of having the place where I work co-opted by some political or cultural agenda any more than any other librarian does. The idea of state or federal government trying this is especially disturbing.
I have to say, though, that I understand both sides of the issues we've seen discussed here recently. The challenged materials in question by and large are aimed at normalizing, encouraging, and even promoting lifestyle choices that many people, myself included, strongly disagree with, and fear will often prove ultimately self-destructive to the people making them. We mostly believe this for religious reasons. Our beliefs have rapidly become a minority in contemporary society, but they aren't fringe beliefs. Millions of us still share them, for what we believe are deeply compelling reasons.
I'm sorry that these beliefs give such offense, but we can't just drop our beliefs or pretend we don't have them. Kaysixteen hasn't been willing to do this at The Fora, and has gotten a lot of grief for it. While I don't agree with everything about the way kay has presented his stance, I think he has shown admirable courage in taking it in the face of such opposition. And while we don't share exactly the same perspective on things, I do agree with kay's concerns at a fundamental level. This is why I understand the motivations behind the materials challenges.
The people making the materials challenges at libraries are acting because they feel they have no choice but to challenge what they see happening in their schools and libraries. To be honest, libraries have done a lot to court these challenges. The materials in question are so common in libraries now because library professional organizations, particularly at the national level, have been actively pushing them. Librarians at the local level often make use of recommended purchase lists and professional association award winner lists—and in recent years these lists have been heavily larded with works on LBG+++ themes. The materials are getting bolder and edgier, especially in the young adult realm.
To put it another way, American library professional associations are taking a very definite stance on some of our day's most divisive cultural issues. There is something seriously problematic about this. Yes, intellectual freedom is a key value of libraries and librarians. Intellectual freedom includes the freedom to hold, and voice and live by dissenting opinions and beliefs. I don't like having to deal with a materials challenge any more than any other librarian would, but a library serves the public, is supported by the public, and we have to recognize that there are times when members of the public feel the need to take action to make their concerns known. Materials challenges are a way of doing this.
Professional organizations should give their members the same chance to be heard. But the American Library Association, and its sister organizations at the national level, has made it clear how and what it wants its members to believe on certain issues. I am not a member of the ALA, because I frankly feel that somebody with my religious beliefs is no longer welcome there. Maybe some would say "good riddance," but, again, my beliefs aren't way out on the fringes. A national professional organization that effectively writes off substantial chunks of the public it serves has problems.
I don't dissent with the ALA only because of my religious beliefs. I also consider its radical stances on some issues deeply problematic for professional reasons. The ALA's priorities and advocacy have pushed libraries into the cultural wars on a particular side. I've been concerned for years now that this would draw a backlash. My concerns are now being realized.
The ALA often speaks of making libraries "safe spaces" for different groups. This is a laudable goal. A library should be a safe space for all members of the community. Taking a radical stance on divisive cultural and political issues, however, threatens this.
I'll give an example from the public library world, where I have most of my own experience. In recent years there's been a great vogue, enthusiastically supported by the ALA, for "drag queen story hours" for children. Some view these as fun events that promote inclusivity and diversity. Others, for deeply held reasons, consider drag shows disturbing and kind of sick. And consider the thought of such programs targeted at children deeply alarming.
What are parents with such concerns supposed to think when their local library starts holding such programs? Of course they have the option of simply not taking their children to them. But these shows are going to be very visible in the library's programming and promotion. They are also going to make parents wonder what else the library plans to expose their children to, perhaps without warning. For these families—and once again, they may be a minority in contemporary America, but they're not uncommon—the library has come to feel like a very unsafe space. This is not good library service. It risks pushing these families out of the library altogether.
And it leads to backlash. In the past year certain public libraries in my home state of Arkansas have jumped on the drag queen story hour bandwagon. I'm personally acquainted with some of the librarians involved. They seem like good people, and conscientious professionals. In my opinion, though, they have exercised very poor professional judgement in needlessly alarming and alienating segments of their local public.
The result has been a disastrous backlash. At one library system members of the voting public, by a substantial margin, voted to punish the library at the last election by cutting the library's operating income in half. This was a terrible, throwing-the-baby-out-with-the-bath-water overreaction. It will seriously damage ordinary, uncontroversial library services on which much of the public depends. As deplorable as this voter action is, though, in my opinion much of the blame lies with the librarians who so needlessly burned bridges with so much of the public they were there to serve.
If libraries don't learn some lessons from this, we're going to see more of this sort of backlash. We're going to see more interference with local libraries by governments and organizations of different stripes, from both ends of the political spectrum. We're going to see segments of the public deciding that they can no longer trust their local public libraries as a safe place for their children. As a librarian, I do not want anybody telling us here how to deal with our local patrons—not Little Rock, not Washington, not the American Library Association, not the American Family Association. Libraries are going to become yet more collateral damage of the culture wars, and the blame will by no means lie all on one side.
Last week, at a public presentation in our community, I said pretty much what I've just said above (One of those present, BTW, was our local legislative representative, whom I did not anticipate being there). I urged everybody there to think hard about the wisdom of using the blunt instrument of legislation to deal with their legitimate and understandable library concerns. I pointed out that what might seem like a good idea in the short term could end up setting precedents that could have very unexpected long-term boomerang effects. I urged them, if they've got concerns about what's going on at the library, to come to us, the librarians, and let us work something out within the community.
If somebody in the community our library serves wants LBG+++ materials at the library, then we are bound to order them as part of our community service, regardless of my personal feelings about them. It comes with the territory. It's not like I don't already have to do this as part of my job—I don't agree with all the trashy romances, gory thrillers, or crackpot political tracts that various members of the public have had me order over the years either.
What I won't do is take divisive or radical stances in the library's programming or promotional efforts that needlessly alarm and alienate large segments of our community. This would be irresponsible on my and the library's part. All sorts of people should be able to feel safe using our library.
One little story to conclude. One of our dearest and most faithful long-term patrons, now deceased, was a man who came "out" some years back. I don't know whether he was ever sexually active. I do know that he made his orientation public in a low-key and non-confrontational way. And people around here let him be.
He never ordered LGB materials at the library. His interests lay in other directions. He was a minor published historian, who did much of his research and writing here. Since I'm a former history PhD student, and he was the only academically-trained historian I had a chance to speak with on a regular basis, I enjoyed visiting with him now and then at work. We all did. He was a nice guy.
We were people with very different ideas, interests, and I'm sure life experiences who found common ground at the library. Libraries are great places for that—if groups and politicians with agendas of all sorts will let us be so that we can get on with our business.
Well said.
Quote from: apl68 on January 09, 2023, 10:04:16 AM
What I won't do is take divisive or radical stances in the library's programming or promotional efforts that needlessly alarm and alienate large segments of our community. This would be irresponsible on my and the library's part. All sorts of people should be able to feel safe using our library.
I think in the culture at large, as well as in academia, there has been this push to "activism" as
morally required. (e.g. "If you're not an anti-racist, you're a racist.") In the past, it was recognized that
diversity of thought meant that the community contained many viewpoints, and so public institutions, like libraries, were supposed to stick to their core mission and be as officially neutral on those other issues as possible. That made those institutions "safe spaces" for people with varied opinions. Sadly, the "activism" has thrown that out. ( I remember when public libraries used to have displays about books that were, at one time or another, burned, to show how the library was in the business of allowing people to
make up their own minds. It's especially ironic to think that some of the people creating those displays in the past are now trying to ban books themselves.)
I'm optimistic that someday that wisdom will return, but it may take a while.
Well, as someone who was in the nexus of the discussion you allude to (and since I am writing real stuff very slowly today) I can respond first, I guess.
Kay seems like a decent sort----except when the hate is not quite contained in his commentary. Which is what you are supporting, apl, even though I am sure you do not mean to. You invoke the public, Christianity, and morality, yet what you are supporting are people who, for whatever reason, are attracted to hate.
For instance,
Quote
In my opinion, though, they have exercised very poor professional judgement in needlessly alarming and alienating segments of their local public.
The result has been a disastrous backlash. At one library system members of the voting public, by a substantial margin, voted to punish the library at the last election by cutting the library's operating income in half. This was a terrible, throwing-the-baby-out-with-the-bath-water overreaction. It will seriously damage ordinary, uncontroversial library services on which much of the public depends. As deplorable as this voter action is, though, in my opinion much of the blame lies with the librarians who so needlessly burned bridges with so much of the public they were there to serve.
Every time a prejudice is confronted, the bigots backlash. Would you have said the same thing about the politics involving Martin Luther King? I am sure you think you wouldn't, but lots and lots and lots of good very religious peeps did. Those folks approached race and integration on very much the same grounds that you do. You are not the first person with a prejudice who feels that you are protecting society from those that would disturb the status quo.
Quote
One of our dearest and most faithful long-term patrons, now deceased, was a man who came "out" some years back. I don't know whether he was ever sexually active. I do know that he made his orientation public in a low-key and non-confrontational way. And people around here let him be.
Are you suggesting that LGBTQ people should just keep their place? Not rock the boat so as not to disturb all the good people who don't want to know they exist? Stay invisible men and women? Be afraid? Live essentially underground so that the bigots can feel righteous?
"And people around here let him be" sounds amazingly ominous; I am sure you did not mean it to, but I think your words actually carry a significant weight.
I am going to say the same thing I did last time: you may have whatever beliefs you like, but please do not try to enforce them in my life or the lives of other people who are not Christian or do not share your prejudices, particularly if you are a government institution. There are laws to this effect, actually, that are rooted in the Constitution.
And have whatever beliefs you like, but be prepared for someone like me to challenge them, particularly if you work for a government entity, particularly if that entity belongs to the public, a public that includes LGBTQ people who do not want to live in the shadows and have done nothing wrong.
And before you condemn the LGBTQ peeps for what you THINK they might do to society, look at the church-----everything from the Tammy Faye Baker controversy to Catholic pedophile priests protected by the church to Florida pastors facilitating COVID scams to Josh Duggar after his own father condemned homosexuality as pedophilia. Your stable is not so clean, actually, despite all the good the church does. Likewise for heterosexual marriage, parenting, and relationships in general.
I know you are a person of very good will, apl, but what you support is prejudice, plain and simple. You are working hard to justify it. Look in your heart.
Quote
... it was recognized that diversity of thought meant that the community contained many viewpoints, and so public institutions, like libraries, were supposed to stick to their core mission and be as officially neutral on those other issues as possible.
<snip>
I remember when public libraries used to have displays about books that were, at one time or another, burned, to show how the library was in the business of allowing people to make up their own minds. It's especially ironic to think that some of the people creating those displays in the past are now trying to ban books themselves.
You do know that this whole thing started because certain conservative parents tried to ban books from the library, right?
Walk your talk, baby.
That's quite the philippic, apl68!
I completely agree that local people should get what they want, locally, and not what they don't want. After all, they are paying for the material. To promote that properly, we have to understand how we got here. The example of the ALA is apt. It's easy for extremists to infiltrate an organization. Many other professional organizations have been taken over by the extreme left. Now, such organizations are not government, but they live in symbiosis with government. They don't need to be pushed to follow the political wind; they have their sensors in the wind.
Thus, lack of local control and consequent lack of variety is an outcome of central government influence, not law. The only way to combat that central government influence is with other government influence! Fortunately, we have States to do so. Not nearly all will, and some will do it ham handedly, at least at first.
But I see no alternative.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 09, 2023, 10:33:10 AM
Every time a prejudice is confronted, the bigots backlash. Would you have said the same thing about the politics involving Martin Luther King? I am sure you think you wouldn't, but lots and lots and lots of good very religious peeps did. Those folks approached race and integration on very much the same grounds that you do. You are not the first person with a prejudice who feels that you are protecting society from those that would disturb the status quo.
One thing that is not at all clear from apl's post is whether not having "Drag Queen Story Time" requires
removing all sorts of materials from the shelves. One does not automatically imply the other. That's the whole point of the library remaining officially neutral about such things. People are free to
read about whatever they wish and form their own opinions about them.
The opposite of censorship is not indoctrination. In fact, the opposite of censorship is intellectual freedom, which implies an
avoidance of ideological indoctrination. (If librarians want to engage in marches, etc. on their
own time,
as private citizens, they're welcome to do so.)
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2023, 10:51:08 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 09, 2023, 10:33:10 AM
Every time a prejudice is confronted, the bigots backlash. Would you have said the same thing about the politics involving Martin Luther King? I am sure you think you wouldn't, but lots and lots and lots of good very religious peeps did. Those folks approached race and integration on very much the same grounds that you do. You are not the first person with a prejudice who feels that you are protecting society from those that would disturb the status quo.
One thing that is not at all clear from apl's post is whether not having "Drag Queen Story Time" requires removing all sorts of materials from the shelves. One does not automatically imply the other. That's the whole point of the library remaining officially neutral about such things. People are free to read about whatever they wish and form their own opinions about them.
The opposite of censorship is not indoctrination. In fact, the opposite of censorship is intellectual freedom, which implies an avoidance of ideological indoctrination. (If librarians want to engage in marches, etc. on their own time, as private citizens, they're welcome to do so.)
So? Quit trying to indoctrinate people, Marshbeast. Let them read and go to storytimes and make up their own minds. Allow intellectual freedom-----which is what you are opposing.
Thank you apl68. I'll just say we disagree, and remind everyone one of the pulled books on the list I linked to was about Michelle Obama. Nothing about LGBTQ issues involved at all.
I stand by everything I wrote about kay, and anyone else who agrees with him. If you hate my sister and her wife, along with their son, you are a bigot. If the thought of reading Heather Has Two Mommies makes you lose your lunch, you are a bigot.
Let's get freedom of choice and censorship straight:
-I am for legalized prostitution. That does not mean that everybody has to allow a brothel next door.
-I am for legalization of heroin. That does not mean that everyone has to shoot himself up.
-I am for freedom of expression. That does not mean I need tolerate billboards advertising pornography across my street.
-I am for freedom of the press. That does not mean I have to read or even see all the garbage, nor, most importantly, that my children have to see it.
-I am for freedom of religion. That does not mean I have to abide by any.
-I am for equal civil rights for everybody. That does not mean I have to associate with anybody.
People differ in their tastes.
No boundaries, no freedom.
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2023, 11:09:41 AM
Let's get freedom of choice and censorship straight:
-I am for legalized prostitution. That does not mean that everybody has to allow a brothel next door.
-I am for legalization of heroin. That does not mean that everyone has to shoot himself up.
-I am for freedom of expression. That does not mean I need tolerate billboards advertising pornography across my street.
-I am for freedom of the press. That does not mean I have to read or even see all the garbage, nor, most importantly, that my children have to see it.
-I am for freedom of religion. That does not mean I have to abide by any.
-I am for equal civil rights for everybody. That does not mean I have to associate with anybody.
People differ in their tastes.
No boundaries, no freedom.
So?
---Don't become a john and don't buy a house next to a metallurgic factory, a sawmill, or a brothel, or any other business that would disturb your delicate sensibilities (you are safe anyway----there are zoning laws);
---do not use heroine;
---do not look at the offensive billboard (do as the Duggars do and look at your shoes----but you'll be okay, there are public decency laws);
---do not read stuff you don't want and perform due diligence as a parent (don't expect the government to do your parenting for you----watch what your kids read but leave my books and moves alone);
---don't go to church if you want to stay home and watch football (just don't try to stop other people from going to church because it might imping on your sense personal violation because they do);
---don't hang out with anyone you don't want...just remember you are not so important that you can tell other people where they can or cannot go unless it is your own house.
Respect other people as you want them to respect you.
And none of that has any equivalency to LBGTQ rights.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 09, 2023, 10:55:09 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2023, 10:51:08 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 09, 2023, 10:33:10 AM
Every time a prejudice is confronted, the bigots backlash. Would you have said the same thing about the politics involving Martin Luther King? I am sure you think you wouldn't, but lots and lots and lots of good very religious peeps did. Those folks approached race and integration on very much the same grounds that you do. You are not the first person with a prejudice who feels that you are protecting society from those that would disturb the status quo.
One thing that is not at all clear from apl's post is whether not having "Drag Queen Story Time" requires removing all sorts of materials from the shelves. One does not automatically imply the other. That's the whole point of the library remaining officially neutral about such things. People are free to read about whatever they wish and form their own opinions about them.
The opposite of censorship is not indoctrination. In fact, the opposite of censorship is intellectual freedom, which implies an avoidance of ideological indoctrination. (If librarians want to engage in marches, etc. on their own time, as private citizens, they're welcome to do so.)
So? Quit trying to indoctrinate people, Marshbeast. Let them read and go to storytimes and make up their own minds. Allow intellectual freedom-----which is what you are opposing.
So would having clerics of various religious groups come in to the library and doing storytime from their own religious texts be a good thing as well, since that's about intellectual freedom?
Thank you,
apl68 for your thoughtful words. Yes, I read the whole thing before responding. And I'm rereading it as I respond.
A few thoughts...
QuoteTo put it another way, American library professional associations are taking a very definite stance on some of our day's most divisive cultural issues. There is something seriously problematic about this. Yes, intellectual freedom is a key value of libraries and librarians. Intellectual freedom includes the freedom to hold, and voice and live by dissenting opinions and beliefs. I don't like having to deal with a materials challenge any more than any other librarian would, but a library serves the public, is supported by the public, and we have to recognize that there are times when members of the public feel the need to take action to make their concerns known. Materials challenges are a way of doing this.
There a subtle point here. Including, as well as
not including certain books, are both forms of taking a very definite stance on an issue. There is no neutral ground.
QuoteAt one library system members of the voting public, by a substantial margin, voted to punish the library at the last election by cutting the library's operating income in half. This was a terrible, throwing-the-baby-out-with-the-bath-water overreaction. It will seriously damage ordinary, uncontroversial library services on which much of the public depends. As deplorable as this voter action is, though, in my opinion much of the blame lies with the librarians who so needlessly burned bridges with so much of the public they were there to serve.
And... define uncontroversial? Who gets to decide? "I disagree and am uncomfortable with this..." because of... what? Gay teen YA fiction? Boy penguins pairing up? Scat porn? Holocaust denials? Yay, KKK?
QuoteIf somebody in the community our library serves wants LBG+++ materials at the library, then we are bound to order them as part of our community service, regardless of my personal feelings about them. It comes with the territory. It's not like I don't already have to do this as part of my job—I don't agree with all the trashy romances, gory thrillers, or crackpot political tracts that various members of the public have had me order over the years either.
What I won't do is take divisive or radical stances in the library's programming or promotional efforts that needlessly alarm and alienate large segments of our community. This would be irresponsible on my and the library's part. All sorts of people should be able to feel safe using our library.
You and I are in "violent agreement" on this point. That said, some of those who are "alarmed and alienated," instead of trying to make sure alternative points of view are shared in a way that builds understanding, are trying to force these ideas into hiding and block the people who wish to explore these ideas.
I live in a city with a big drag queen scene. I wouldn't want to tell someone who didn't like it that their only choice was to move, still, I wouldn't want to tell the drag queens to tone it down because someone might be uncomfortable.
On hot days, certain neighborhoods go clothing optional. As a community, we generally agree that naked is fine, but no overt sexualized behavior. Takes a little getting used to for some people.
QuoteWe were people with very different ideas, interests, and I'm sure life experiences who found common ground at the library. Libraries are great places for that—if groups and politicians with agendas of all sorts will let us be so that we can get on with our business.
If you take away the language of dissent, you take away the language of agreement and greater understanding.
These books need to be included so that all people can share their points of view and learn from one another.
If the intention is to take away those conversations, which is what some of these materials challenges are trying to do, then it cannot stand.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2023, 11:18:36 AM
So would having clerics of various religious groups come in to the library and doing storytime from their own religious texts be a good thing as well, since that's about intellectual freedom?
In my view, of course.
Thanks for posting this! I'll drop you a PM later, apl68.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 09, 2023, 11:18:22 AM
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2023, 11:09:41 AM
Let's get freedom of choice and censorship straight:
-I am for legalized prostitution. That does not mean that everybody has to allow a brothel next door.
-I am for legalization of heroin. That does not mean that everyone has to shoot himself up.
-I am for freedom of expression. That does not mean I need tolerate billboards advertising pornography across my street.
-I am for freedom of the press. That does not mean I have to read or even see all the garbage, nor, most importantly, that my children have to see it.
-I am for freedom of religion. That does not mean I have to abide by any.
-I am for equal civil rights for everybody. That does not mean I have to associate with anybody.
People differ in their tastes.
No boundaries, no freedom.
So?
---Don't become a john and don't buy a house next to a metallurgic factory, a sawmill, or a brothel, or any other business that would disturb your delicate sensibilities (you are safe anyway----there are zoning laws);
---do not use heroine;
---do not look at the offensive billboard (do as the Duggars do and look at your shoes----but you'll be okay, there are public decency laws);
---do not read stuff you don't want and perform due diligence as a parent (don't expect the government to do your parenting for you----watch what your kids read but leave my books and moves alone);
---don't go to church if you want to stay home and watch football (just don't try to stop other people from going to church because it might imping on your sense personal violation because they do);
---don't hang out with anyone you don't want...just remember you are not so important that you can tell other people where they can or cannot go unless it is your own house.
Respect other people as you want them to respect you.
And none of that has any equivalency to LBGTQ rights.
You messed up who has property rights, precisely what this is about. Amounts to assuming away the problem.
--there are zoning laws. Yeah, who makes them?
--there are public decency laws. Yeah, who makes them? What do they encompass?
--(don't expect the government to do your parenting for you----watch what your kids read but leave my books and moves alone. The government is doing the parenting!
They are not
your books, they are
our books.
It must be determined which books they are.--(just don't try to stop other people from going to church. I don't, but the government has been doing the equivalent for decades!
--don't hang out with anyone you don't want. I don't.
LBGTQ rights are rights like any other. Civil rights absolutely. Other rights, see above. Vote on the library committee!
There will be different answers to who owns the rights in different places. We could all segregate by tastes in these things if we let local communities decide for themselves. They may not have the authority, so State level decisions are second-best.
In the criminal context, I think it's okay for judges to override jury verdicts to
reduce sentences (when and where that's up to a jury). I do not think it is at all okay for them to override a jury to increase a sentence. This seems to me like a perfectly sound harm reduction principle that does not grant too much power to a single individual, and which mitigates harms of excess.
I feel much the same way about library acquisitions: the public should absolutely be able to request the inclusion of particular materials (the point of a public library, after all, is to serve its public). But removal decisions should be up to library staff alone, and should never be compelled externally (unless stocking some material would violate a criminal code provision). Individual members of the public know what
they like and want, but they're not the library's sole constituency, and the library has to serve many different people and interests. The staff are best-placed to know how best to do that, and have access to usage data as well.
A library is not an archive. It routinely purges material for which it anticipates no great future demand. But when the demand is there, it should be serving it--dissenting external voices be damned. I don't think my library should stock
The Art of the Deal, but if it did, I trust that the staff know what they're doing, and I accept their judgement. It's their job, after all, and they have a better sense of its goals and their constituency than I do. (I also expect that it will be purged at some point due to lack of interest--and if the interest is there, well, then I guess it should stay, and I need to rethink how I conceive of my community.)
Quote from: apl68 on January 09, 2023, 09:57:31 AM
The people making the materials challenges at libraries are acting because they feel they have no choice but to challenge what they see happening in their schools and libraries.
Yes. And, unfortunately, they are in the wrong. I don't think we/you (library staff) should be moved by concerns that boil down to a wish to erase or ignore the existence of entire groups of people based on some characteristic they hold in common. That is transparently wrong, and if it doesn't seem transparently wrong to someone, they need to sit and have a hard think about things.
What you should be moved by is the fact that teens would very much like to read the new Mira Grant/Erin Bowman/whatever novel, just as you're moved by the fact that a lot of people want to read Harlequins, Fifty Shades sequels, etc. (And, really, if what we're squeamish about is sexual content, then we need to have a
much harder look at the library catalogue, especially where heterosexual relationships are concerned).
QuoteI feel much the same way about library acquisitions: the public should absolutely be able to request the inclusion of particular materials (the point of a public library, after all, is to serve its public). But removal decisions should be up to library staff alone, and should never be compelled externally (unless stocking some material would violate a criminal code provision). Individual members of the public know what they like and want, but they're not the library's sole constituency, and the library has to serve many different people and interests. The staff are best-placed to know how best to do that, and have access to usage data as well.
Should, should. So the staff owns the library!
The staff are paid for by somebody. The payers
should own the library. :-)
Because libraries are local public goods, politics reigns - properly - in determining who owns the library. There is no problem if the decisions are made in a politically decentralized manner as great as possible.
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2023, 12:18:14 PM
QuoteI feel much the same way about library acquisitions: the public should absolutely be able to request the inclusion of particular materials (the point of a public library, after all, is to serve its public). But removal decisions should be up to library staff alone, and should never be compelled externally (unless stocking some material would violate a criminal code provision). Individual members of the public know what they like and want, but they're not the library's sole constituency, and the library has to serve many different people and interests. The staff are best-placed to know how best to do that, and have access to usage data as well.
Should, should. So the staff owns the library!
The staff are paid for by somebody. The payers should own the library. :-)
Because libraries are local public goods, politics reigns - properly - in determining who owns the library. There is no problem if the decisions are made in a politically decentralized manner as great as possible.
Drag Queens pay taxes too...
Quote from: ciao_yall on January 09, 2023, 11:28:02 AM
I live in a city with a big drag queen scene. I wouldn't want to tell someone who didn't like it that their only choice was to move, still, I wouldn't want to tell the drag queens to tone it down because someone might be uncomfortable.
So far no-one has suggested people should be barred from
using the library. Similarly, the fact that certain books are
in the library, such as religious texts, doesn't mean that having public readings of them is appropriate.
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 09, 2023, 12:34:04 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2023, 12:18:14 PM
QuoteI feel much the same way about library acquisitions: the public should absolutely be able to request the inclusion of particular materials (the point of a public library, after all, is to serve its public). But removal decisions should be up to library staff alone, and should never be compelled externally (unless stocking some material would violate a criminal code provision). Individual members of the public know what they like and want, but they're not the library's sole constituency, and the library has to serve many different people and interests. The staff are best-placed to know how best to do that, and have access to usage data as well.
Should, should. So the staff owns the library!
The staff are paid for by somebody. The payers should own the library. :-)
Because libraries are local public goods, politics reigns - properly - in determining who owns the library. There is no problem if the decisions are made in a politically decentralized manner as great as possible.
Drag Queens pay taxes too...
Sure, that's why it would best be a political decision among voters for each library. Drag Queens absolutely have civil rights. Join the library committee. :-)
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2023, 12:39:31 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on January 09, 2023, 11:28:02 AM
I live in a city with a big drag queen scene. I wouldn't want to tell someone who didn't like it that their only choice was to move, still, I wouldn't want to tell the drag queens to tone it down because someone might be uncomfortable.
So far no-one has suggested people should be barred from using the library. Similarly, the fact that certain books are in the library, such as religious texts, doesn't mean that having public readings of them is appropriate.
If anyone thinks
Tango Makes Three is inappropriate for a public reading, they are simply wrong.
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2023, 01:03:48 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 09, 2023, 12:34:04 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2023, 12:18:14 PM
QuoteI feel much the same way about library acquisitions: the public should absolutely be able to request the inclusion of particular materials (the point of a public library, after all, is to serve its public). But removal decisions should be up to library staff alone, and should never be compelled externally (unless stocking some material would violate a criminal code provision). Individual members of the public know what they like and want, but they're not the library's sole constituency, and the library has to serve many different people and interests. The staff are best-placed to know how best to do that, and have access to usage data as well.
Should, should. So the staff owns the library!
The staff are paid for by somebody. The payers should own the library. :-)
Because libraries are local public goods, politics reigns - properly - in determining who owns the library. There is no problem if the decisions are made in a politically decentralized manner as great as possible.
Drag Queens pay taxes too...
Sure, that's why it would best be a political decision among voters for each library. Drag Queens absolutely have civil rights. Join the library committee. :-)
Well, someone obviously voiced their interest in having these books included at local libraries already. Now, a larger group with political influence seeks to remove them on grounds of moral superiority. The issue with a majority rules mentality is that the majority can often suppress the interests of the minority.
An interesting contrast is that many people morally object to gun culture, but there is no move to ban books about guns or those that glorify violence. I think the argument for this would be stronger (not that I would support it), but it just dosnt elicit the same panic as homosexuality does in the conservative crowd.
QuoteThe issue with a majority rules mentality is that the majority can often suppress the interests of the minority.
No kidding! That's dangerous at the national level, and totally innocuous at the local level. Different places will have different majorities and different policies. There is no suppression.
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2023, 01:26:05 PM
QuoteThe issue with a majority rules mentality is that the majority can often suppress the interests of the minority.
No kidding! That's dangerous at the national level, and totally innocuous at the local level. Different places will have different majorities and different policies. There is no suppression.
Tell that to the few LGB people living in a small town...
I grew up in a rural area and suppression and discrimination was alive and well.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2023, 12:39:31 PM
Quote from: ciao_yall on January 09, 2023, 11:28:02 AM
I live in a city with a big drag queen scene. I wouldn't want to tell someone who didn't like it that their only choice was to move, still, I wouldn't want to tell the drag queens to tone it down because someone might be uncomfortable.
So far no-one has suggested people should be barred from using the library. Similarly, the fact that certain books are in the library, such as religious texts, doesn't mean that having public readings of them is appropriate.
I don't understand your intent with the above. A story hour is generally (always?) done in a separate space, and you only take your kids in if you want to. A Bible reading would be done in the same setting, and in the Midwest for example they are.
We have at least three separate issues going on here. The story times that are part of the library's offerings, allowing private groups of citizens to meet-read-discuss in a separate space within the library, and the banning of content being housed in the library. The second of those, imo, should be a nearly absolute right.
If the story time is put on by a private group of citizens, it should be in the absolute right to be done category.
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 09, 2023, 01:31:37 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2023, 01:26:05 PM
QuoteThe issue with a majority rules mentality is that the majority can often suppress the interests of the minority.
No kidding! That's dangerous at the national level, and totally innocuous at the local level. Different places will have different majorities and different policies. There is no suppression.
Tell that to the few LGB people living in a small town...
I grew up in a rural area and suppression and discrimination was alive and well.
Look, this thread is about libraries. Get a national law that says LGB material has to be put into libraries. Perhaps prominently, perhaps not. Opt in or opt out for parents?
That would be really terrible. That would be suppression of people who don't want their kids to come near this stuff.
But this will not be a barrier in cities and big towns.
But the public can't pay for my whims to have my own library. That's the "money is free" fallacy.
People differ. The point is to find a way to live together peacefully. Decentralization does not impose.
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2023, 11:47:02 AM
You messed up who has property rights, precisely what this is about. Amounts to assuming away the problem.
--there are zoning laws. Yeah, who makes them?
--there are public decency laws. Yeah, who makes them? What do they encompass?
--(don't expect the government to do your parenting for you----watch what your kids read but leave my books and moves alone. The government is doing the parenting!
They are not your books, they are our books. It must be determined which books they are.
--(just don't try to stop other people from going to church. I don't, but the government has been doing the equivalent for decades!
--don't hang out with anyone you don't want. I don't.
LBGTQ rights are rights like any other. Civil rights absolutely. Other rights, see above. Vote on the library committee!
There will be different answers to who owns the rights in different places. We could all segregate by tastes in these things if we let local communities decide for themselves. They may not have the authority, so State level decisions are second-best.
Guess that one stung a bit, huh Big-D?
We know who makes the laws, the same government which secures First Amendment rights, establishes federal law, and has protected LGBTQ rights nationwide.
And you are right, they are our books. And I am glad to see our books supporting LGBTQ rights.
The government does not stop peeps from going to church. It doesn't even tax churches. Why do conservatives play the victim card so often? Why do conservatives default to "the government" whenever there is something that culture accepts but conservatives don't like? Do y'all have a playbook or something?
Glad you don't hang out with anyone you don't want to. What is the problem?
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2023, 12:18:14 PM
QuoteI feel much the same way about library acquisitions: the public should absolutely be able to request the inclusion of particular materials (the point of a public library, after all, is to serve its public). But removal decisions should be up to library staff alone, and should never be compelled externally (unless stocking some material would violate a criminal code provision). Individual members of the public know what they like and want, but they're not the library's sole constituency, and the library has to serve many different people and interests. The staff are best-placed to know how best to do that, and have access to usage data as well.
Should, should. So the staff owns the library!
The staff are paid for by somebody. The payers should own the library. :-)
Because libraries are local public goods, politics reigns - properly - in determining who owns the library. There is no problem if the decisions are made in a politically decentralized manner as great as possible.
So you support government intervention into what the public has access to?
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2023, 01:26:05 PM
QuoteThe issue with a majority rules mentality is that the majority can often suppress the interests of the minority.
No kidding! That's dangerous at the national level, and totally innocuous at the local level. Different places will have different majorities and different policies. There is no suppression.
Disagree.
You are all about suppression and repression, dismalist.
My good friend Marshy is all about hypocrisy.
You both want to dictate what other people do and think, and you hide behind the notions that you somehow stand up for community interest and freedom of thought.
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2023, 01:40:51 PM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 09, 2023, 01:31:37 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2023, 01:26:05 PM
QuoteThe issue with a majority rules mentality is that the majority can often suppress the interests of the minority.
No kidding! That's dangerous at the national level, and totally innocuous at the local level. Different places will have different majorities and different policies. There is no suppression.
Tell that to the few LGB people living in a small town...
I grew up in a rural area and suppression and discrimination was alive and well.
Look, this thread is about libraries. Get a national law that says LGB material has to be put into libraries. Perhaps prominently, perhaps not. Opt in or opt out for parents?
That would be really terrible. That would be suppression of people who don't want their kids to come near this stuff.
But this will not be a barrier in cities and big towns.
But the public can't pay for my whims to have my own library. That's the "money is free" fallacy.
People differ. The point is to find a way to live together peacefully. Decentralization does not impose.
You dont need laws specifically stating that LGB material must be put into libraries, simply a non-discriminatory framework for libraries to work under to ensure a breadth of diverse reading material that dosnt suppress any group without just reason (ie hate speech etc.).
De-centralization can only go so far since libraries only exist to serve a population of sufficient size. They are by definition centralized. A smaller county/town/region is just as likely (or more) to suppress the interests of the minority than a larger center since they may have more of a voice in the larger city.
I think books spouting creationism are harmful to society and indoctrinating our youth, but I would never push to have them removed or banned from the library. The whole book banning thing seems to be from one side of the aisle.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 09, 2023, 01:50:44 PM
My good friend Marshy is all about hypocrisy.
You both want to dictate what other people do and think, and you hide behind the notions that you somehow stand up for community interest and freedom of thought.
I'm not sure what you mean. I can get along perfectly well with people of other faiths; Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, etc. Religious texts from all of those groups along with the Bible are perfectly fine to have in libraries, where anyone is free to read them. Just because there are points on which different religions disagree, it doesn't mean the majority religion in an area has to supress the others. So while I'm in favour of all of those books being in the public library, I would rather not have public readings from any
including the Bible to illustrate the point that our society allows people freedom of conscience, so we can all treat each other with dignity despite our differences of opinion
even over things which we all think are very important.
Again, how are public readings in a separate room a problem? I seriously do not understand.
Quotea non-discriminatory framework for libraries to work under to ensure a breadth of diverse reading material that dosnt suppress any group without just reason (ie hate speech etc.).
Non-discrimination in books prescribes substance which some will not like! In addition, suppressing hate speech suppresses only what
some consider hate speech. And on and on.
In the face of disagreement, decentralization leaves more satisfied payers than centralization.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2023, 02:21:59 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 09, 2023, 01:50:44 PM
My good friend Marshy is all about hypocrisy.
You both want to dictate what other people do and think, and you hide behind the notions that you somehow stand up for community interest and freedom of thought.
I'm not sure what you mean. I can get along perfectly well with people of other faiths; Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, etc. Religious texts from all of those groups along with the Bible are perfectly fine to have in libraries, where anyone is free to read them. Just because there are points on which different religions disagree, it doesn't mean the majority religion in an area has to supress the others. So while I'm in favour of all of those books being in the public library, I would rather not have public readings from any including the Bible to illustrate the point that our society allows people freedom of conscience, so we can all treat each other with dignity despite our differences of opinion even over things which we all think are very important.
I have no doubt you respect (almost) everyone. Personally, I have no problem with faith groups using publicly owned spaces as long as these spaces are equally open to all faiths, and as long as the publicly owned organizations are not organizing, advertising, or profiting from the faith activity. In fact, I think the Supreme Court issued a ruling in favor of this very thing with high school student Christian groups.
But that wasn't what I was talking about.
You cannot refuse books on library shelves or call a voluntary reading group "indoctrination" (which it is not) and also claim to support "intellectual freedom" or the freedom to chose.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 09, 2023, 02:32:49 PM
Again, how are public readings in a separate room a problem? I seriously do not understand.
Depends how "separate" the room is, including how much publicity it gets in the main space. If Alex Jones was going to read in a "separate space", I don't want "SANDY HOOK WAS A HOAX!" posters in the main space directing people to it.
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2023, 02:35:47 PM
In the face of disagreement, decentralization leaves more satisfied payers than centralization.
Who says?
Jim Crow was pretty decentralized.
And sorry, we live in a country. We have a centralized government. All of us are bound by federal law whether or not we agree with it.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 09, 2023, 02:42:27 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2023, 02:35:47 PM
In the face of disagreement, decentralization leaves more satisfied payers than centralization.
Who says?
Jim Crow was pretty decentralized.
And sorry, we live in a country. We have a centralized government. All of us are bound by federal law whether or not we agree with it.
Jim Crow was not decentralized. It occurred with the acquiescence of the national government to end Reconstruction with a deal to overcome an electoral college dispute: Hayes, a Republican was deemed President, and the Democrats got their way to end Reconstruction.
All governments make mistakes. Centralized governments make bloody big ones!
Anyway, this is about libraries, not slavery. :-)
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2023, 02:49:54 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 09, 2023, 02:42:27 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2023, 02:35:47 PM
In the face of disagreement, decentralization leaves more satisfied payers than centralization.
Who says?
Jim Crow was pretty decentralized.
And sorry, we live in a country. We have a centralized government. All of us are bound by federal law whether or not we agree with it.
Jim Crow was not decentralized. It occurred with the acquiescence of the national government to end Reconstruction with a deal to overcome an electoral college dispute: Hayes, a Republican was deemed President, and the Democrats got their way to end Reconstruction.
All governments make mistakes. Centralized governments make bloody big ones!
Anyway, this is about libraries, not slavery. :-)
I think the point is that there is a reason we are centralized. Local governments make bloody big mistakes too. Jim Crow were state and local statutes that grew out of post-Civil War "black codes."
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2023, 02:39:37 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 09, 2023, 02:32:49 PM
Again, how are public readings in a separate room a problem? I seriously do not understand.
Depends how "separate" the room is, including how much publicity it gets in the main space. If Alex Jones was going to read in a "separate space", I don't want "SANDY HOOK WAS A HOAX!" posters in the main space directing people to it.
And neither do I. So, what would you propose? If libraries are owned by the public, are you suggesting they be for nothing more than accessing books and information?
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 09, 2023, 07:38:24 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2023, 02:39:37 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 09, 2023, 02:32:49 PM
Again, how are public readings in a separate room a problem? I seriously do not understand.
Depends how "separate" the room is, including how much publicity it gets in the main space. If Alex Jones was going to read in a "separate space", I don't want "SANDY HOOK WAS A HOAX!" posters in the main space directing people to it.
And neither do I. So, what would you propose? If libraries are owned by the public, are you suggesting they be for nothing more than accessing books and information?
We have to let even the A-holes, scoundrels, psychos and nutbags speak. Our job is to be there also and to challenge them----in person, in the press, in our research, in our private conversations, on the streets, or, like here, online.
You will always have the "but what if the Nazis want to march?" scenarios. The worst of the worst will always stymie the debate. There will always be someone who compares our causes and opinions to Hitler.
I don't want Jones' screeching his commercially-motivated bullshit in a public library either, but we have to allow him so our freedom remains sacrosanct.
Freedom is a very dangerous thing. But what is the other option?
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 09, 2023, 01:21:55 PM
Well, someone obviously voiced their interest in having these books included at local libraries already. Now, a larger noisier group with political influence seeks to remove them on grounds of moral superiority. The issue with a majority rules public outcry mentality is that the majority group that shows up in matching t-shirts can often suppress the interests of the minority people who weren't paying that much attention.
There. FTFY.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 09, 2023, 07:53:37 PM
I don't want Jones' screeching his commercially-motivated bullshit in a public library either, but we have to allow him so our freedom remains sacrosanct.
I don't think that's quite right. Public spaces are not obligated to offer themselves up to anyone who wants to use them. Those who are charged with maintaining those spaces have the task of determining whether, in their judgement, a particular event is in the interests of the community they serve. The result will be that although some spaces may judge that they should welcome Jones, most will not--especially when he's just peddling his usual bullshit. And that's as it should be.
Remember the paradox of tolerance, from Popper's
The Open Society and its Enemies:
QuoteUnlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 09, 2023, 10:40:59 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 09, 2023, 07:53:37 PM
I don't want Jones' screeching his commercially-motivated bullshit in a public library either, but we have to allow him so our freedom remains sacrosanct.
I don't think that's quite right. Public spaces are not obligated to offer themselves up to anyone who wants to use them. Those who are charged with maintaining those spaces have the task of determining whether, in their judgement, a particular event is in the interests of the community they serve. The result will be that although some spaces may judge that they should welcome Jones, most will not--especially when he's just peddling his usual bullshit. And that's as it should be.
Remember the paradox of tolerance, from Popper's The Open Society and its Enemies:
QuoteUnlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
Charlie Popper! Very good.
Absolutely agreed, except possibly for
who is to run a local public good in the interests of the community they serve.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 09, 2023, 07:38:24 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2023, 02:39:37 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 09, 2023, 02:32:49 PM
Again, how are public readings in a separate room a problem? I seriously do not understand.
Depends how "separate" the room is, including how much publicity it gets in the main space. If Alex Jones was going to read in a "separate space", I don't want "SANDY HOOK WAS A HOAX!" posters in the main space directing people to it.
And neither do I. So, what would you propose? If libraries are owned by the public, are you suggesting they be for nothing more than accessing books and information?
I'm suggesting they should as much as possible try to avoid endorsements (explicit or implicit) of viewpoints that are not widely-held. (The majority of people in society rarely hold extreme views from either end of the political spectrum.) They should be like the ideal moderator of a debate; one who may
hold opinions, even strong ones, but who places the value of open enquiry above their personal preferences for the performance of their duty. So, for example, I'd avoid having the creationist speak at the library, and I'd avoid Richard Dawkins basically saying organized religion is for idiots. Both of those will produce animosity rather than community spirit.
So if that means libraries seem somewhat timid in their stance, so be it. The thing they should
not be timid about is supporting people studying, thinking, and making up
their own minds.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 10, 2023, 05:09:32 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 09, 2023, 07:38:24 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2023, 02:39:37 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 09, 2023, 02:32:49 PM
Again, how are public readings in a separate room a problem? I seriously do not understand.
Depends how "separate" the room is, including how much publicity it gets in the main space. If Alex Jones was going to read in a "separate space", I don't want "SANDY HOOK WAS A HOAX!" posters in the main space directing people to it.
And neither do I. So, what would you propose? If libraries are owned by the public, are you suggesting they be for nothing more than accessing books and information?
I'm suggesting they should as much as possible try to avoid endorsements (explicit or implicit) of viewpoints that are not widely-held. (The majority of people in society rarely hold extreme views from either end of the political spectrum.) They should be like the ideal moderator of a debate; one who may hold opinions, even strong ones, but who places the value of open enquiry above their personal preferences for the performance of their duty. So, for example, I'd avoid having the creationist speak at the library, and I'd avoid Richard Dawkins basically saying organized religion is for idiots. Both of those will produce animosity rather than community spirit.
So if that means libraries seem somewhat timid in their stance, so be it. The thing they should not be timid about is supporting people studying, thinking, and making up their own minds.
There is a fundamental difference between religious groups and LGBT groups organizing functions at a library Drag queens are not trying to convert you, they are just raising awareness and acceptance of a marginalized group (something Christians should embrace). Without knowing the details of these so calls drag queen reading groups, it is hard to have much of an opinion, but based on previous sensationalism I suspect they are pretty benign and it is being twisted.
Really though, if you don't like it, don't attend...
Back to the role of librarians - do we not hire such folks for their ability to use their discretion in choosing library materials? To me, this argument is just another in a long line of dismissing professional expertise over what a more vocal group thinks is correct.
Quote from: waterboy on January 10, 2023, 06:53:05 AM
Back to the role of librarians - do we not hire such folks for their ability to use their discretion in choosing library materials? To me, this argument is just another in a long line of dismissing professional expertise over what a more vocal group thinks is correct.
Yes!
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 10, 2023, 05:09:32 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 09, 2023, 07:38:24 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2023, 02:39:37 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 09, 2023, 02:32:49 PM
Again, how are public readings in a separate room a problem? I seriously do not understand.
Depends how "separate" the room is, including how much publicity it gets in the main space. If Alex Jones was going to read in a "separate space", I don't want "SANDY HOOK WAS A HOAX!" posters in the main space directing people to it.
And neither do I. So, what would you propose? If libraries are owned by the public, are you suggesting they be for nothing more than accessing books and information?
I'm suggesting they should as much as possible try to avoid endorsements (explicit or implicit) of viewpoints that are not widely-held. (The majority of people in society rarely hold extreme views from either end of the political spectrum.) They should be like the ideal moderator of a debate; one who may hold opinions, even strong ones, but who places the value of open enquiry above their personal preferences for the performance of their duty. So, for example, I'd avoid having the creationist speak at the library, and I'd avoid Richard Dawkins basically saying organized religion is for idiots. Both of those will produce animosity rather than community spirit.
So if that means libraries seem somewhat timid in their stance, so be it. The thing they should not be timid about is supporting people studying, thinking, and making up their own minds.
This is kind of what I was trying to get at. Libraries have a lot of different kinds of groups--often very different kinds of groups--competing to use and influence them. Things that one group may consider entirely unexceptionable can totally offend and put off another group. A good librarian tries hard not to write off or give offense to any of them. It's not just a matter of not censoring particular groups. It's also a matter of bending over backwards at times to avoid looking like you're playing favorites.
For example, our library doesn't allow religious or political groups of any kind to use our community room facilities for meetings. Period. It's so difficult to keep from looking to one group like you're favoring another one over them that it's best to play it really safe. Most libraries I've seen don't welcome religious meetings either, or let religious groups distribute literature through the library, or put up displays celebrating particular religious groups. At our library we let church groups post occasional flyers for upcoming events alongside other event flyers on the bulletin board, and put an occasional donated bible on the free table among all our secular free books, and that's it. If we were to then start putting up displays highlighting LBG++ materials and promoting Pride Week, hosting drag queen story hours and the like, then a lot of members of our community would assume that we were taking sides and trying to promote these things. And, again, they'd feel offended, they'd be concerned about what else their children might be exposed to, and we'd have burned our bridges with a large segment of our community.
There's a sense in which librarians have to try to keep the peace--which is becoming more and more challenging all the time. We don't censor books here, but we censor ourselves quite a bit when dealing with the public. Sometimes it does mean we look timid, as marshy says. Maybe state legislatures and message-board posters and the ALA looking in from outside don't agree with our choices. But we're the ones on the ground who know our communities, and that should count for something when trying to figure out how to negotiate the minefields of today. It behooves us to do so with more caution than some librarians I can think of have shown.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 09, 2023, 10:33:10 AM
And before you condemn the LGBTQ peeps for what you THINK they might do to society, look at the church-----everything from the Tammy Faye Baker controversy to Catholic pedophile priests protected by the church to Florida pastors facilitating COVID scams to Josh Duggar after his own father condemned homosexuality as pedophilia. Your stable is not so clean, actually, despite all the good the church does. Likewise for heterosexual marriage, parenting, and relationships in general.
I know you are a person of very good will, apl, but what you support is prejudice, plain and simple. You are working hard to justify it. Look in your heart.
I gather from the above that you believe that I consider LGB people morally inferior and and Christians morally superior. Which I never said, nor do I believe. I don't believe that gay people are "worse" people than anybody else, and I don't believe that Christians are "better" people than anybody else. Making these sorts of distinctions would be contrary to New Testament teaching. The New Testament teaches that
all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. No matter what we grew up believing, no matter how "good" we have tried to be or like to think we are, we are all sinners and failures in God's sight, and justly condemned by God for our sins.
The only thing that makes followers of Jesus any different from anybody else is that we've admitted what we are, we've admitted that we can't fix it ourselves, and we've trusted in God's grace through Jesus' sacrifice for us to save us. And have then followed through on that by allowing Jesus' influence to produce radical change in our lives. That doesn't mean we'll live perfect lives, but it does mean we will live lives characterized by an earnest striving to follow a higher standard than the world around us sets. That means striving to avoid things like envy, greed, anger, hatred, substance abuse, and sexual immorality in all its forms. It means striving to practice things like love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, humility, and general self control. Again, nobody can ever be perfect in this life, but if somebody is unapologetically practicing greed, or envy, or anger, or hatred, or substance abuse, or sexual immorality, then God's Word says that that person will not see the kingdom of God, absent a turning away from those things. Neither will somebody who avoids all that stuff but doesn't seem to care much about love, joy, peace, etc.
And that's where the issue that Christians who see the New Testament as the paramount authority of their faith have a problem with LGB etc. practices. They are forms of sexual immorality. The unapologetic practice of such things is a sign that a person is lost and in danger of being condemned by God in eternity. We don't want to see that happen to people, nor do we want to see other people encouraged to engage in such practices as well. We want to warn them that they need to change their lives--just like
everybody, in some way or another, needs to change.
You've told me above to examine my heart. I do that quite often. I often see things that I need to change, and try, with God's help, to change them. Here's what my heart tells me about gay people. If they insist on practicing the lifestyles that they feel the desire to practice, then that is a sign that they will go to Hell. I don't want them to go to Hell, because I love people in general. I love people enough that I pray for people who've murdered friends of mine, and others who have treated me abusively. If I was to shut up about what I believe for fear of being offensive, or argue myself into deciding that God's Word was wrong on this issue because it doesn't accord with secular society's contemporary wisdom, then I would be letting people sleepwalk into Hell. Which is the precise opposite of love. Sometimes the person who loves most is not the person who tells the other person just what the other person wants to hear.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 10, 2023, 05:09:32 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 09, 2023, 07:38:24 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2023, 02:39:37 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 09, 2023, 02:32:49 PM
Again, how are public readings in a separate room a problem? I seriously do not understand.
Depends how "separate" the room is, including how much publicity it gets in the main space. If Alex Jones was going to read in a "separate space", I don't want "SANDY HOOK WAS A HOAX!" posters in the main space directing people to it.
And neither do I. So, what would you propose? If libraries are owned by the public, are you suggesting they be for nothing more than accessing books and information?
I'm suggesting they should as much as possible try to avoid endorsements (explicit or implicit) of viewpoints that are not widely-held. (The majority of people in society rarely hold extreme views from either end of the political spectrum.) They should be like the ideal moderator of a debate; one who may hold opinions, even strong ones, but who places the value of open enquiry above their personal preferences for the performance of their duty. So, for example, I'd avoid having the creationist speak at the library, and I'd avoid Richard Dawkins basically saying organized religion is for idiots. Both of those will produce animosity rather than community spirit.
So if that means libraries seem somewhat timid in their stance, so be it. The thing they should not be timid about is supporting people studying, thinking, and making up their own minds.
Absolutely! Who wants plurality in a free culture!?
Who wants to hear marginalized voices when we can have "community spirit?"
Who wants to hear or see of think about anything not in the mainstream!?
After all, there are no examples of cultures in which the majority do not hold extreme views...well, let's pretend American slavery did not exist, that will help...or North Korean cult culture...or the lives of LGBTQ people in, say, the '40s and '50s...and maybe it is okay since PEW found that only 64% of Americans currently are Christian and this percentage is quickly dropping; guess they will be in the minority sometime in the near future...
Let's just watch reruns of "Leave it to Beaver" and "My Three Dads" for cultural commentary and community spirit.
Good thinking, Marsh.
Quote from: apl68 on January 10, 2023, 08:20:33 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 10, 2023, 05:09:32 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 09, 2023, 07:38:24 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 09, 2023, 02:39:37 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 09, 2023, 02:32:49 PM
Again, how are public readings in a separate room a problem? I seriously do not understand.
Depends how "separate" the room is, including how much publicity it gets in the main space. If Alex Jones was going to read in a "separate space", I don't want "SANDY HOOK WAS A HOAX!" posters in the main space directing people to it.
And neither do I. So, what would you propose? If libraries are owned by the public, are you suggesting they be for nothing more than accessing books and information?
I'm suggesting they should as much as possible try to avoid endorsements (explicit or implicit) of viewpoints that are not widely-held. (The majority of people in society rarely hold extreme views from either end of the political spectrum.) They should be like the ideal moderator of a debate; one who may hold opinions, even strong ones, but who places the value of open enquiry above their personal preferences for the performance of their duty. So, for example, I'd avoid having the creationist speak at the library, and I'd avoid Richard Dawkins basically saying organized religion is for idiots. Both of those will produce animosity rather than community spirit.
So if that means libraries seem somewhat timid in their stance, so be it. The thing they should not be timid about is supporting people studying, thinking, and making up their own minds.
This is kind of what I was trying to get at. Libraries have a lot of different kinds of groups--often very different kinds of groups--competing to use and influence them. Things that one group may consider entirely unexceptionable can totally offend and put off another group. A good librarian tries hard not to write off or give offense to any of them. It's not just a matter of not censoring particular groups. It's also a matter of bending over backwards at times to avoid looking like you're playing favorites.
For example, our library doesn't allow religious or political groups of any kind to use our community room facilities for meetings. Period. It's so difficult to keep from looking to one group like you're favoring another one over them that it's best to play it really safe. Most libraries I've seen don't welcome religious meetings either, or let religious groups distribute literature through the library, or put up displays celebrating particular religious groups. At our library we let church groups post occasional flyers for upcoming events alongside other event flyers on the bulletin board, and put an occasional donated bible on the free table among all our secular free books, and that's it. If we were to then start putting up displays highlighting LBG++ materials and promoting Pride Week, hosting drag queen story hours and the like, then a lot of members of our community would assume that we were taking sides and trying to promote these things. And, again, they'd feel offended, they'd be concerned about what else their children might be exposed to, and we'd have burned our bridges with a large segment of our community.
There's a sense in which librarians have to try to keep the peace--which is becoming more and more challenging all the time. We don't censor books here, but we censor ourselves quite a bit when dealing with the public. Sometimes it does mean we look timid, as marshy says. Maybe state legislatures and message-board posters and the ALA looking in from outside don't agree with our choices. But we're the ones on the ground who know our communities, and that should count for something when trying to figure out how to negotiate the minefields of today. It behooves us to do so with more caution than some librarians I can think of have shown.
I very much appreciate the spirit of these comments. This is exactly what I had in mind. If every library behaved accordingly, I'm sure that there would be lots of variety in libraries across space, with some or many allowing religion, politics, or LBG material, but not necessarily all.
How to induce librarians to behave this way is an entirely different matter.
The elephant in the room is that libraries are now culling vast amounts of their collection since they think we are all going to digital formats now.
Quote from: apl68 on January 10, 2023, 08:20:33 AM
This is kind of what I was trying to get at. Libraries have a lot of different kinds of groups--often very different kinds of groups--competing to use and influence them. Things that one group may consider entirely unexceptionable can totally offend and put off another group. A good librarian tries hard not to write off or give offense to any of them. It's not just a matter of not censoring particular groups. It's also a matter of bending over backwards at times to avoid looking like you're playing favorites.
<snip>
But we're the ones on the ground who know our communities, and that should count for something when trying to figure out how to negotiate the minefields of today. It behooves us to do so with more caution than some librarians I can think of have shown.
I had an argument once with my father----a super good dude from the Eisenhower era and a former Army captain----who argued that "gays should not be in the military because they get beaten up." My dad was also a lawyer who believed in the law as if it were a religion, so when I asked him, "You mean you banish the victim of the assault and not the perpetrator?" he sputtered for a bit.
He said something along the lines of, "No, charge the guy who started the fight."
"But you still are punishing the guy who got beaten up because he is gay?"
Dad didn't want to argue this point (he did have a bit of a temper and did not like to be challenged).
Then I remember when we visited family on the east coast. My parents, who wanted to expose their children to as much of the world as they could, took us to New York City where my father pointed to a couple of young men wearing necklaces and high-heels and said, "There they go. A couple of little q----s in high-heels." If someone had come up in front of my father and said, "There they go. A couple of Puerto Ricans" (which I what I think the young men were) with the same level of disgust and disdain that my father's voice had carried when talking about "q----s," dad probably would have decked them (dad was also a former Green Beret and college linebacker).
What happened to my dad was that, as his children of the Mtv generation got older, the fights over things like gay rights got louder----and this was very upsetting to both my good, honest, humane parents who struggled with the concept that we shouldn't just suffocate people who are not like us.
And then my dad had a couple of clients who were gay. And a gay couple bravely (for our town) took a house down the street. And then my dad accidentally went to a choir concert at the World Fair and found out it was the San Francisco Gay Men's choir. "They were good," he said, somewhat chagrinned at having gone to the concert. "They had ruffles at their wrists."
In short, it didn't take all that much for both my parents to think about their prejudices and, God bless them, confront them in their own minds and eventually perform complete 180s when they actually spent time thinking.
I would be sympathetic to your conundrum, apl, except that I know the yoke in the middle of this particular bruhaha.
I asked a non-rhetorical question about where you would have stood on MLK and Civil Rights if this were, say, 1953. I think you don't want to answer it.
Remember, libraries were once segregated at the hands of otherwise good, moral, religious people who did not want to ruffle the community spirit.
Unsung Heroes that Helped Desegregate Public Libraries (https://oaklandlibrary.org/blogs/post/unsung-heroes-that-helped-desegregate-public-libraries/#:~:text=Although%20segregation%20was%20legal%20in,Tucker%20argued%20in%20court.)
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2023, 01:26:05 PM
QuoteThe issue with a majority rules mentality is that the majority can often suppress the interests of the minority.
No kidding! That's dangerous at the national level, and totally innocuous at the local level. Different places will have different majorities and different policies. There is no suppression.
The whole point of the Constitution is to
protect the minority. It allows people who have different ideas, religions, whatever, to be free to express themselves.
Laws were passed by the majority to oppress and humiliate minorities. So, making it illegal to marry someone of a different race, sleep with someone of the same sex, use contraception, sit in the front of the bus... all of these were challenged under the Constitution.
apl68 can believe whatever s/he wants about gays, Christianity or whatever. The Constitution protects his/her right to do so. However, the Constitution does not protect anyone's right to punish or oppress those who believe one way or the other.
Some have made the argument that simply allowing drag queens in the daylight, saying "Happy Holidays," or the mere discussion of science or history is oppressive to THEM.
They are welcome to make the argument. It doesn't mean anyone has to agree with it. And it doesn't mean that the harm caused by closeting drag queens, slapping anyone who says "Happy Holidays," or avoiding any discussion in school besides the alphabet (someone spelled out c-r-i-t-i-c-a-l r-a-c-e t-h-e-o-r-y!) and arithmetic (algebra was invented by Muslims!) should offset the harm caused by someone who is troubled by something they saw and heard.
Quote from: apl68 on January 10, 2023, 09:11:08 AM
I gather from the above that you believe that I consider LGB people morally inferior and and Christians morally superior. Which I never said, nor do I believe. I don't believe that gay people are "worse" people than anybody else, and I don't believe that Christians are "better" people than anybody else.
No.
I think you are using the Bible to justify prejudice.
And you may not mean to privilege Christianity over anybody else, but that is what you enact whether you mean to or not.
Quote
...striving to follow a higher standard than the world around us sets.
Like, say, overcoming one of the oldest prejudices on the planet?
Quote
That means striving to avoid things like envy, greed, anger, hatred, substance abuse, and sexual immorality in all its forms.
Guess Wall Street and most college students are out.
But that's great for you. Now, leave the rest of the world alone.
Quote
...but doesn't seem to care much about love, joy, peace, etc.
I do not see any of these in your belief system.
Quote
The unapologetic practice of such things is a sign that a person is lost and in danger of being condemned by God in eternity. We don't want to see that happen to people, nor do we want to see other people encouraged to engage in such practices as well. We want to warn them that they need to change their lives--just like everybody, in some way or another, needs to change.
Fine. Talk all you want. But leave the supernatural out of policy and law.
Quote
Here's what my heart tells me about gay people. If they insist on practicing the lifestyles that they feel the desire to practice, then that is a sign that they will go to Hell.
Ditto the above, please.
You know that the word and to an extent the concept of "Hell" comes from cross-cultural fertilization with Norse mythology, right?
Quote
Sometimes the person who loves most is not the person who tells the other person just what the other person wants to hear.
I love you and other Christians the most, apl.
Quote from: ciao_yall on January 10, 2023, 10:27:37 AM
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2023, 01:26:05 PM
QuoteThe issue with a majority rules mentality is that the majority can often suppress the interests of the minority.
No kidding! That's dangerous at the national level, and totally innocuous at the local level. Different places will have different majorities and different policies. There is no suppression.
The whole point of the Constitution is to protect the minority. It allows people who have different ideas, religions, whatever, to be free to express themselves.
Laws were passed by the majority to oppress and humiliate minorities. So, making it illegal to marry someone of a different race, sleep with someone of the same sex, use contraception, sit in the front of the bus... all of these were challenged under the Constitution.
...
There is no disagreement about the evils of majoritarianism. But the smaller the polity, the more homogeneous the population, and the less dangerous majoritarianism is.
In the context of this thread, none of this would be a special problem if there weren't
public libraries. Privately owned bookstores have to decide what to stock, too. Their goal is to make profits. Stocking some books in some communities would drive away some customers, so those books do not get stocked. The challenge is to find a public analogue to this private process. Majoritarianism in small communities would come close because there are lots of different small communities [lots of different libraries].
Minorities cannot have the right to have their favorite books stocked everywhere, for that would drive away other clients, depriving them of their rights while they are paying for the books. But minorities could easily get the right to have their favorite books stocked in some or many places.
Quote from: dismalist on January 10, 2023, 11:02:31 AM
Minorities cannot have the right to have their favorite books stocked everywhere, for that would drive away other clients, depriving them of their rights while they are paying for the books. But minorities could easily get the right to have their favorite books stocked in some or many places.
Does that actually make sense, Big-D?
If the "other clients" are soooooooo delicate that a book drives them away, let them stay on their farms. That is their choice to have such incredibly fragile belief systems.
No library in the world forces you to take out books you don't want to read.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 10, 2023, 11:07:05 AM
Quote from: dismalist on January 10, 2023, 11:02:31 AM
Minorities cannot have the right to have their favorite books stocked everywhere, for that would drive away other clients, depriving them of their rights while they are paying for the books. But minorities could easily get the right to have their favorite books stocked in some or many places.
Does that actually make sense, Big-D?
If the "other clients" are soooooooo delicate that a book drives them away, let them stay on their farms. That is their choice to have such incredibly fragile belief systems.
No library in the world forces you to take out books you don't want to read.
That's exactly what we're arguing about!
One extreme of property right leads to the delicates staying on the farm. [Perhaps they don't even want to
see the books at issue.] The other leads to the indelicates forced to buy their own library! How do we decide between these property rights regimes? Politically.
Locally majoritarian.
The local part ensures that there will be variety, like with privately owned bookstores.
Fundamentally, all this is a problem only because people differ in their tastes. How do we live together in peace? Only if there is choice. And that is feasible for public libraries, at least over space. Hell, bigger places have more than one library!
Quote from: dismalist on January 10, 2023, 11:23:29 AM
Fundamentally, all this is a problem only because people differ in their tastes. How do we live together in peace? Only if there is choice.
Ha! You and Marshy have the same thesis: "We must have choice! Therefore only the majority can have books in the library!"
You prose is confusing, my friend, and your thinking inaccurate.
If you cannot stand the marketplace of ideas, indeed, stay on the farm. Just don't expect the rest of us to tiptoe around your tender feelings.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 10, 2023, 11:31:10 AM
Quote from: dismalist on January 10, 2023, 11:23:29 AM
Fundamentally, all this is a problem only because people differ in their tastes. How do we live together in peace? Only if there is choice.
Ha! You and Marshy have the same thesis: "We must have choice! Therefore only the majority can have books in the library!"
You prose is confusing, my friend, and your thinking inaccurate.
If you cannot stand the marketplace of ideas, indeed, stay on the farm. Just don't expect the rest of us to tiptoe around your tender feelings.
No, you don't follow the argument, at all. Your use of "majority" in the singular proves it.
Quote from: apl68 on January 10, 2023, 08:20:33 AM
For example, our library doesn't allow religious or political groups of any kind to use our community room facilities for meetings. Period. It's so difficult to keep from looking to one group like you're favoring another one over them that it's best to play it really safe.
I appreciate your thoughts, and the difficulties you will inevitably have in the job. My sister was a head librarian in two cities prior to going back to complete a doctorate.
I am surprised about your position re political groups. How do you decide what is political versus discussion? It's easy if it's party affiliated, but for example, what if it has to do with abolishing the income tax in favor of a consumption tax? Would that kind of lecture/discussion be allowed.
Also, the favoritism issue you describe wouldn't (in my mind) be as big an issue in larger cities. Do you think that's on target?
Quote from: dismalist on January 10, 2023, 12:17:42 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 10, 2023, 11:31:10 AM
Quote from: dismalist on January 10, 2023, 11:23:29 AM
Fundamentally, all this is a problem only because people differ in their tastes. How do we live together in peace? Only if there is choice.
Ha! You and Marshy have the same thesis: "We must have choice! Therefore only the majority can have books in the library!"
You prose is confusing, my friend, and your thinking inaccurate.
If you cannot stand the marketplace of ideas, indeed, stay on the farm. Just don't expect the rest of us to tiptoe around your tender feelings.
No, you don't follow the argument, at all. Your use of "majority" in the singular proves it.
No, I follow.
I know a bit about indelicates' communities, having grown up in one.
Sorry Marshman, but your wife will not be allowed in the public library, being a minority...or maybe she will be okay if----as apl suggests----she does not draw attention to herself or her own personal beliefs, and she will not find books by any of the Obamas or Native American poets because, you know, the local majority will be offended and feel forced to purchase their own safe space without all this upsetting difference of belief and opinion.
At the same time, since we are worried about local majoritism, apl and kat might find a few books (with black covers, of course, so no one is offput and therefore cannot use the library) on fundamental Christianity (unless, of course, it is a book that condemns fundamental Christianity) at the Portland, Oregon public library.
In the end, what we have are a series of communities with radically different, monolithic, monomaniacal, and yet unchallenged belief systems in play. But, you know, these folks are
paying for their own books in a public entity just like they are paying for a movie ticket, and therefore...
But wait. Didn't the PEW Research Center find that a solid majority of Americans of both parties (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2017/10/05/5-homosexuality-gender-and-religion/) (70% actually) accept homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle. Why, yes! Yes they did. This is a fact that made our friend kay16 so uncomfortable that hu simply decided hu didn't believe it. And the kids are all sorts of onboard with LGBTQ issues----we'll only be worried about this particular controversy for a short while, actually.
Our problem is solved! Now we just have to remember that the frothing, blustering bigots are in the minority (and we should probably also remember that communities are part of the greater whole that we call a "country") and therefore we can ignore them. Let them find a nice, safe go-go bar to vent their heterosexuality in and all's good.
QuoteIn the end, what we have are a series of communities with radically different, monolithic, monomaniacal, and yet unchallenged belief systems in play.
Ah, the library as
agitprop center! :-)
Quote from: dismalist on January 10, 2023, 11:02:31 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on January 10, 2023, 10:27:37 AM
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2023, 01:26:05 PM
QuoteThe issue with a majority rules mentality is that the majority can often suppress the interests of the minority.
No kidding! That's dangerous at the national level, and totally innocuous at the local level. Different places will have different majorities and different policies. There is no suppression.
The whole point of the Constitution is to protect the minority. It allows people who have different ideas, religions, whatever, to be free to express themselves.
Laws were passed by the majority to oppress and humiliate minorities. So, making it illegal to marry someone of a different race, sleep with someone of the same sex, use contraception, sit in the front of the bus... all of these were challenged under the Constitution.
...
There is no disagreement about the evils of majoritarianism. But the smaller the polity, the more homogeneous the population, and the less dangerous majoritarianism is.
In the context of this thread, none of this would be a special problem if there weren't public libraries. Privately owned bookstores have to decide what to stock, too. Their goal is to make profits. Stocking some books in some communities would drive away some customers, so those books do not get stocked. The challenge is to find a public analogue to this private process. Majoritarianism in small communities would come close because there are lots of different small communities [lots of different libraries].
Minorities cannot have the right to have their favorite books stocked everywhere, for that would drive away other clients, depriving them of their rights while they are paying for the books. But minorities could easily get the right to have their favorite books stocked in some or many places.
The percentage of gay people is likely the same in a small town as it is in a large city, so in this particular example they are not more homogeneous. However, in a small town, I suspect the LGB population would be less inclined to advocate for their interests for a variety of reasons. In this particular case, I think small towns operating on their own (decentralized) would be more likely to develop discriminatory policies against LGBT.
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 10, 2023, 01:41:42 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 10, 2023, 11:02:31 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on January 10, 2023, 10:27:37 AM
Quote from: dismalist on January 09, 2023, 01:26:05 PM
QuoteThe issue with a majority rules mentality is that the majority can often suppress the interests of the minority.
No kidding! That's dangerous at the national level, and totally innocuous at the local level. Different places will have different majorities and different policies. There is no suppression.
The whole point of the Constitution is to protect the minority. It allows people who have different ideas, religions, whatever, to be free to express themselves.
Laws were passed by the majority to oppress and humiliate minorities. So, making it illegal to marry someone of a different race, sleep with someone of the same sex, use contraception, sit in the front of the bus... all of these were challenged under the Constitution.
...
There is no disagreement about the evils of majoritarianism. But the smaller the polity, the more homogeneous the population, and the less dangerous majoritarianism is.
In the context of this thread, none of this would be a special problem if there weren't public libraries. Privately owned bookstores have to decide what to stock, too. Their goal is to make profits. Stocking some books in some communities would drive away some customers, so those books do not get stocked. The challenge is to find a public analogue to this private process. Majoritarianism in small communities would come close because there are lots of different small communities [lots of different libraries].
Minorities cannot have the right to have their favorite books stocked everywhere, for that would drive away other clients, depriving them of their rights while they are paying for the books. But minorities could easily get the right to have their favorite books stocked in some or many places.
The percentage of gay people is likely the same in a small town as it is in a large city, so in this particular example they are not more homogeneous. However, in a small town, I suspect the LGB population would be less inclined to advocate for their interests for a variety of reasons. In this particular case, I think small towns operating on their own (decentralized) would be more likely to develop discriminatory policies against LGBT.
The distribution of the LGB population is a factual question. Here are some data cited by Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States) The more local data is further down. Shares of LGB people in the population do differ across space.
Anyway, I don't think that the share of LGB people in any library community matters so much for decision making as their neighbors' sympathy for their wishes for the library. I would guess that that is overwhelming in at least some places, probably many, and yes, absent in other places, with some distribution in between.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 10, 2023, 12:18:59 PM
Quote from: apl68 on January 10, 2023, 08:20:33 AM
For example, our library doesn't allow religious or political groups of any kind to use our community room facilities for meetings. Period. It's so difficult to keep from looking to one group like you're favoring another one over them that it's best to play it really safe.
I appreciate your thoughts, and the difficulties you will inevitably have in the job. My sister was a head librarian in two cities prior to going back to complete a doctorate.
I am surprised about your position re political groups. How do you decide what is political versus discussion? It's easy if it's party affiliated, but for example, what if it has to do with abolishing the income tax in favor of a consumption tax? Would that kind of lecture/discussion be allowed.
Also, the favoritism issue you describe wouldn't (in my mind) be as big an issue in larger cities. Do you think that's on target?
Larger systems tend to have more leeway in some ways, yes. They've also often got multiple branches where they can experiment with different sorts of offerings in different places.
We've generally understood "political" as relating to particular parties or candidates. But we would not encourage activist groups of any sort to use the meeting room (People having informal meetings around the building in small groups is another matter. As long as you're not making a lot of noise or otherwise creating disruption, you can meet to talk about pretty much anything you'd like around here). Activism tends to end up with a strong partisan component in today's environment anyway.
Requests of this sort have been very, very rare over the years at our library. The last one to date was a group wanting to hold a protest meeting regarding COVID rules during a period in the pandemic when those were still widely in force. When they found out that we were going to make them follow COVID rules to use our premises, they decided they weren't interested in using them after all.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 10, 2023, 10:16:59 AM
And then my dad had a couple of clients who were gay. And a gay couple bravely (for our town) took a house down the street. And then my dad accidentally went to a choir concert at the World Fair and found out it was the San Francisco Gay Men's choir. "They were good," he said, somewhat chagrinned at having gone to the concert. "They had ruffles at their wrists."
In short, it didn't take all that much for both my parents to think about their prejudices and, God bless them, confront them in their own minds and eventually perform complete 180s when they actually spent time thinking.
I would be sympathetic to your conundrum, apl, except that I know the yoke in the middle of this particular bruhaha.
I asked a non-rhetorical question about where you would have stood on MLK and Civil Rights if this were, say, 1953. I think you don't want to answer it.
Remember, libraries were once segregated at the hands of otherwise good, moral, religious people who did not want to ruffle the community spirit.
Unsung Heroes that Helped Desegregate Public Libraries (https://oaklandlibrary.org/blogs/post/unsung-heroes-that-helped-desegregate-public-libraries/#:~:text=Although%20segregation%20was%20legal%20in,Tucker%20argued%20in%20court.)
I didn't realize that was a non-rhetorical question. To be honest, I kind of assumed from the tone of your responses that it was rhetorical.
I have wondered sometimes what I would have done if I had lived in the Civil Rights era--and other times and places too, for that matter. One reason I've always been a fan of the study of history is that it can prompt reflection of that sort.
Based on what I know of actual Christians of that generation--serious Christians, not just people who went to church because it was the expected thing--I suspect I would have followed a trajectory something like this: Initially I would likely have regarded Dr. King and other advocates for civil rights with some suspicion. Maybe they had good intentions, maybe they were more like dangerous rabble-rousers. And anyway, what were they so up-in-arms about? Weren't birds of a feather better off flocking together?
Then I would have started having Christian leaders whom I trusted pointing out that the New Testament never said anything to justify racial segregation. It says pretty explicitly that God is no respecter of persons. All are sinners alike, and all who come to Jesus are brothers and sisters in Christ alike. Maybe the Damascus Road moment would have been Billy Graham desegregating his evangelical crusades, at a time when that would have been a major statement. And pointing out that segregating black people was ultimately all due to pride, and that our pride, as white southerners, was going to lead us to Hell if we didn't forsake it. It would have taken some time, but eventually I would have gone along with desegregation, accepted desegregated schools for my children without demur--as my parents and the parents of my white friends did when the time came--and gotten used to living in a desegregated community. Interracial marriage would probably have taken longer to accept, but eventually I'd realize that objections to this were unbiblical as well. Eventually perhaps I'd be a member of a church, such as the one I in fact attend now, with both black and white members. I'd pray alongside black friends and discuss spiritual matters with them, as I have in fact been doing for many years.
That's my answer to your counterfactual. I can't really know, of course, because if I'd lived then I wouldn't exactly be me. I'm as much a product of my own time and place as anybody else. I do know that older white Christians I know who actually did live through that era went through those sorts of things, and did a lot of soul-searching and repentance. With some of them it is still an imperfect work in progress.
Your anecdote about your father's journey to enlightenment suggests that you think that I've never really met or interacted with any gay people. I've been doing so for decades, with a number of different individuals. I've also read some nonfiction and fiction from gay authors and perspectives, such as
Less, by Andrew Sean Greer. One or two of the gay people I've gotten to know struck me as kind of jerks. Most seemed pretty easy to get along with, like most people I've met in general. Some I've had quite friendly relations with. I've never tried to hide what I believe from them. I guess you could say that we agreed to disagree.
Overall I've found gay people to be a fair cross-section of humanity. No matter how one sections them, humans are in need of redemption.
All of us are. We do in some ways differ in what we need to be redeemed from. Maybe it's our sexuality. Maybe it's a general self-centeredness. Maybe it's our anger with God because he didn't make the world and our lives like we wanted them to be, since we obviously know better than God. I've personally found myself in disagreement with God on each of the above at times, by the way. Then I remember that I'm only one human being, and not a particularly notable one at that, and that God is the Creator of the universe, for whom billions of years is like only a few days. And I realize that I'm surely not the one in the right here, so I'd best admit that and ask God to help me learn to do things his way. That's what being a Christian involves. I have to do it every day. And encourage others to consider doing the same.
Quote from: dismalist on January 10, 2023, 02:00:56 PM
The distribution of the LGB population is a factual question. Here are some data cited by Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States) The more local data is further down. Shares of out LGB people in the population do differ across space.
There. FTFY.
Quote
Anyway, I don't think that the share of LGB people in any library community matters so much for decision making as their neighbors' sympathy for their wishes for the library. I would guess that that is overwhelming in at least some places, probably many, and yes, absent in other places, with some distribution in between.
Research (https://news.gallup.com/poll/118931/knowing-someone-gay-lesbian-affects-views-gay-issues.aspx) shows that the more likely one is to know someone who is LGBT, they are more likely to support LGBT rights.
So, yes, representation matters.
The right to be out matters.
The right to see books that provide another perspective does matter.
Apl68 you remind me of one of my former students. She was troubled because she ended up in an LBGTQ Studies class and felt their perspective conflicted with her Christian beliefs. What I told her was that her job, in the class, was not to agree or disagree with them. Her job was to listen to what they had to say about themselves, and show that she at least heard them. After the class was over, if she still felt the same way, well, that was fine.
That said, if someone made it clear to me they believed I was going to Hell, I might be a bit of a jerk to them.
I appreciate the honest and thoughtful response, apl.
I too like to think that I would have risen to the new tide of civil rights. Probably neither of us would, or if we did, it would be a very qualified awakening.
Which leads me to wonder: there are different evaluations of scripture which come to a different perspective on the subject of homosexuality. There are Christians who, like Billy Graham desegregating his flock, openly accept homosexuality as Biblically endorsed, or at least not Biblically condemned. The view you espouse is not the only one. For instance:
https://www.hrc.org/resources/what-does-the-bible-say-about-homosexuality
https://reformationproject.org/biblical-case/
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/18/most-u-s-christian-groups-grow-more-accepting-of-homosexuality/
Have you dealt with these or similar ideas? Or are your ideas circumscribed by your particular congregation?
My father's story is a story about a guy who had been taught that homosexuality was a mental illness but who actually reevaluated his beliefs based on experiences in this world.
Quote from: dismalist on January 10, 2023, 12:56:56 PM
QuoteIn the end, what we have are a series of communities with radically different, monolithic, monomaniacal, and yet unchallenged belief systems in play.
Ah, the library as agitprop center! :-)
Yes, I noticed you were using the library as an agitprop. Why?
And the library, as someone has pointed out, is slowly going digital. The library is really just a proxy for the culture as a whole.
Quote from: ciao_yall on January 10, 2023, 03:52:16 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 10, 2023, 02:00:56 PM
The distribution of the LGB population is a factual question. Here are some data cited by Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States) The more local data is further down. Shares of out LGB people in the population do differ across space.
There. FTFY.
Quote
Anyway, I don't think that the share of LGB people in any library community matters so much for decision making as their neighbors' sympathy for their wishes for the library. I would guess that that is overwhelming in at least some places, probably many, and yes, absent in other places, with some distribution in between.
Research (https://news.gallup.com/poll/118931/knowing-someone-gay-lesbian-affects-views-gay-issues.aspx) shows that the more likely one is to know someone who is LGBT, they are more likely to support LGBT rights.
So, yes, representation matters.
The right to be out matters.
The right to see books that provide another perspective does matter.
...
Not much disagreement here. Factually, the data come from surveys, which are anonymous, so out shouldn't matter much. But that's not the point of anything. It's the empathy of neighbors that matters, as I said.
A right to be out exists already. How that right is
received depends on our fellows. These do exist. Getting along with people is something that all of us have to, or have had to, learn.
The right to see books cannot be unlimited unless one pays for the books oneself. I cannot ask the public to finance my own public library, given my own tastes that diverge widely from the community in which I live.
Since this is about
public libraries, the ability to use some or many public libraries under a highly decentralized decision making system is a good deal for everybody on average in my estimation. That is my political value judgement. I'd much prefer a market for libraries, yielding much more variety, but that won't happen.
Quote from: dismalist on January 10, 2023, 04:13:35 PM
Not much disagreement here. Factually, the data come from surveys, which are anonymous, so out shouldn't matter much. But that's not the point of anything. It's the empathy of neighbors that matters, as I said.
A right to be out exists already. How that right is received depends on our fellows. These do exist. Getting along with people is something that all of us have to, or have had to, learn.
The right to see books cannot be unlimited unless one pays for the books oneself. I cannot ask the public to finance my own public library, given my own tastes that diverge widely from the community in which I live.
Since this is about public libraries, the ability to use some or many public libraries under a highly decentralized decision making system is a good deal for everybody on average in my estimation. That is my political value judgement. I'd much prefer a market for libraries, yielding much more variety, but that won't happen.
But who is responsible? Is it the responsibility of a person to hide whatever aspects of their identity might face disagreement? Or is it the responsibility of the person who has disagreements to behave in a civil manner?
France is an interesting example with the Muslim population. The French want to be officially secular - liberte, egalite, fraternite and all of that. So... if a Muslim chooses to wear a hijab (https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/05/opinions/france-hijab-ban-sports-aziz/index.html) or a burkini, (https://www.euronews.com/2022/06/21/french-court-rules-in-favour-of-burkini-ban#:~:text=France's%20highest%20administrative%20court%20has,women%20to%20uphold%20their%20faith.) and she is harassed, it is considered her fault for showing everyone she is Muslim and opening herself up to criticism.
The French make the excuse that wearing Christian symbols is also a concern so they are not discriminating. Still, if someone wearing a rosary were harassed for wearing it, who would be considered the guilty party?
Quote from: ciao_yall on January 10, 2023, 06:14:50 PM
Is it the responsibility of a person to hide whatever aspects of their identity might face disagreement? Or is it the responsibility of the person who has disagreements to behave in a civil manner?
Still, if someone wearing a rosary were harassed for wearing it, who would be considered the guilty party?
Big-D will sidestep this, probably through a little pseudo-jargon and circular phrasing.
The person who disagrees must be civil.
The person who harasses the Catholic is the guilty party.
It's pretty simple, really.
Quote from: ciao_yall on January 10, 2023, 06:14:50 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 10, 2023, 04:13:35 PM
Not much disagreement here. Factually, the data come from surveys, which are anonymous, so out shouldn't matter much. But that's not the point of anything. It's the empathy of neighbors that matters, as I said.
A right to be out exists already. How that right is received depends on our fellows. These do exist. Getting along with people is something that all of us have to, or have had to, learn.
The right to see books cannot be unlimited unless one pays for the books oneself. I cannot ask the public to finance my own public library, given my own tastes that diverge widely from the community in which I live.
Since this is about public libraries, the ability to use some or many public libraries under a highly decentralized decision making system is a good deal for everybody on average in my estimation. That is my political value judgement. I'd much prefer a market for libraries, yielding much more variety, but that won't happen.
But who is responsible? Is it the responsibility of a person to hide whatever aspects of their identity might face disagreement? Or is it the responsibility of the person who has disagreements to behave in a civil manner?
France is an interesting example with the Muslim population. The French want to be officially secular - liberte, egalite, fraternite and all of that. So... if a Muslim chooses to wear a hijab (https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/05/opinions/france-hijab-ban-sports-aziz/index.html) or a burkini, (https://www.euronews.com/2022/06/21/french-court-rules-in-favour-of-burkini-ban#:~:text=France's%20highest%20administrative%20court%20has,women%20to%20uphold%20their%20faith.) and she is harassed, it is considered her fault for showing everyone she is Muslim and opening herself up to criticism.
The French make the excuse that wearing Christian symbols is also a concern so they are not discriminating. Still, if someone wearing a rosary were harassed for wearing it, who would be considered the guilty party?
That's the fundamental problem. What is the property rights regime? To keep it simple and use the French example: Do I have the right to wear a hijab? Do I have the right to wear a necklace with a christian cross? With the star of David? May I wear none? May I wear any?
Given these possible combinations, it's clear the French State is seriously misguided in its actual policy, in my opinion.
It's much preferable here in the US, where we can wear any, or even all, or none.
The harassers are liable.I do not have to like it if you wear a christian cross. I may not want to see it. It's upon me to accept your taste nationwide.
But libraries are small compared to the population.
Because I may not want to see the books you like in the public library, I can be accommodated locally, in a way I cannot be accommodated with your dress. You may want to see the books you like in all libraries. That hurts me.
The pain is minimized and the gain is maximized if stocking decisions are decentralized, like in bookstores.
Quote from: dismalist on January 10, 2023, 06:33:11 PM
That's the fundamental problem. What is the property rights regime?
But libraries are small compared to the population. Because I may not want to see the books you like in the public library, I can be accommodated locally, in a way I cannot be accommodated with your dress. You may want to see the books you like in all libraries. That hurts me.
The pain is minimized and the gain is maximized if stocking decisions are decentralized.
You are "hurt" by books you "see?"
So you presume to gather "support" from other locals who have as fragile a belief system and as delicate a sensibility as you?
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 10, 2023, 06:57:22 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 10, 2023, 06:33:11 PM
That's the fundamental problem. What is the property rights regime?
But libraries are small compared to the population. Because I may not want to see the books you like in the public library, I can be accommodated locally, in a way I cannot be accommodated with your dress. You may want to see the books you like in all libraries. That hurts me.
The pain is minimized and the gain is maximized if stocking decisions are decentralized.
You are "hurt" by books you "see?"
So you presume to gather "support" from other locals who have as fragile a belief system and as delicate a sensibility as you?
I have all three volumes of
Das Kapital, reprint Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1924 right next to me. [I only ever perused the first volume.] It pains me to look at them.
Hit me harder; hit me harder! :-)
Quote from: dismalist on January 10, 2023, 07:12:52 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 10, 2023, 06:57:22 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 10, 2023, 06:33:11 PM
That's the fundamental problem. What is the property rights regime?
But libraries are small compared to the population. Because I may not want to see the books you like in the public library, I can be accommodated locally, in a way I cannot be accommodated with your dress. You may want to see the books you like in all libraries. That hurts me.
The pain is minimized and the gain is maximized if stocking decisions are decentralized.
You are "hurt" by books you "see?"
So you presume to gather "support" from other locals who have as fragile a belief system and as delicate a sensibility as you?
I have all three volumes of Das Kapital, reprint Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1924 right next to me. [I only ever perused the first volume.] It pains me to look at them.
Hit me harder; hit me harder! :-)
I'm only paraphrasing what you posted, you know.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 10, 2023, 06:57:22 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 10, 2023, 06:33:11 PM
That's the fundamental problem. What is the property rights regime?
But libraries are small compared to the population. Because I may not want to see the books you like in the public library, I can be accommodated locally, in a way I cannot be accommodated with your dress. You may want to see the books you like in all libraries. That hurts me.
The pain is minimized and the gain is maximized if stocking decisions are decentralized.
You are "hurt" by books you "see?"
So you presume to gather "support" from other locals who have as fragile a belief system and as delicate a sensibility as you?
On the other side though, there may be people in your community we that suffer greater hurt by not having access to the books you don't like. What makes your interests more important than theirs? You can simply not sign out the book you don't like if it is there, they may not be able to access it at all if it is not there.
Sending libraries so they only include information you agree with is so anti-democratic it isn't funny.
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 11, 2023, 03:23:47 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 10, 2023, 06:57:22 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 10, 2023, 06:33:11 PM
That's the fundamental problem. What is the property rights regime?
But libraries are small compared to the population. Because I may not want to see the books you like in the public library, I can be accommodated locally, in a way I cannot be accommodated with your dress. You may want to see the books you like in all libraries. That hurts me.
The pain is minimized and the gain is maximized if stocking decisions are decentralized.
You are "hurt" by books you "see?"
So you presume to gather "support" from other locals who have as fragile a belief system and as delicate a sensibility as you?
On the other side though, there may be people in your community we that suffer greater hurt by not having access to the books you don't like. What makes your interests more important than theirs? You can simply not sign out the book you don't like if it is there, they may not be able to access it at all if it is not there.
Sending libraries so they only include information you agree with is so anti-democratic it isn't funny.
So it's undemocratic to remove books saying inter-racial or homosexual relationships are wrong?
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 11, 2023, 08:26:46 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 11, 2023, 03:23:47 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 10, 2023, 06:57:22 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 10, 2023, 06:33:11 PM
That's the fundamental problem. What is the property rights regime?
But libraries are small compared to the population. Because I may not want to see the books you like in the public library, I can be accommodated locally, in a way I cannot be accommodated with your dress. You may want to see the books you like in all libraries. That hurts me.
The pain is minimized and the gain is maximized if stocking decisions are decentralized.
You are "hurt" by books you "see?"
So you presume to gather "support" from other locals who have as fragile a belief system and as delicate a sensibility as you?
On the other side though, there may be people in your community we that suffer greater hurt by not having access to the books you don't like. What makes your interests more important than theirs? You can simply not sign out the book you don't like if it is there, they may not be able to access it at all if it is not there.
Sending libraries so they only include information you agree with is so anti-democratic it isn't funny.
So it's undemocratic to remove books saying inter-racial or homosexual relationships are wrong?
Yes.
Democracy is a decision making method. It is without content of its own.
Libraries cannot own all books. Somehow, books must be chosen for each public library.
Having the local community choose by some democratic means seems completely justified, given that there are many libraries and many communities.
Quote from: dismalist on January 11, 2023, 09:06:28 AM
Democracy is a decision making method. It is without content of its own.
Libraries cannot own all books. Somehow, books must be chosen for each public library.
Having the local community choose by some democratic means seems completely justified, given that there are many libraries and many communities.
Based on the data you provided, the lowest level of LGB identifying people is over 1% (the real number is likely much higher than the survey shows for various reasons, but...). This is a minority group, but large enough that their reading interests should be included. More importantly, they should not be specifically and methodically excluded, which is what is happening.
The irony is that the people screaming about "cancel culture" are the same people that are cancelling this culture.
Quote from: dismalist on January 11, 2023, 09:06:28 AM
Democracy is a decision making method. It is without content of its own.
Libraries cannot own all books. Somehow, books must be chosen for each public library.
Having the local community choose by some democratic means seems completely justified, given that there are many libraries and many communities.
You're saying the same thing over and over.
The librarian is the "democratic means" by which books are selected. That's why you pay them.
The "local community" still needs to obey the law.
While you are not suggesting it directly, you are arguing de facto for book burnings or the equivalent by the local bigots and hotheads who are "hurt" by books they do not like. Anyplace or time you've hear of this before?
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 11, 2023, 09:23:24 AM
Quote from: dismalist on January 11, 2023, 09:06:28 AM
Democracy is a decision making method. It is without content of its own.
Libraries cannot own all books. Somehow, books must be chosen for each public library.
Having the local community choose by some democratic means seems completely justified, given that there are many libraries and many communities.
Based on the data you provided, the lowest level of LGB identifying people is over 1% (the real number is likely much higher than the survey shows for various reasons, but...). This is a minority group, but large enough that their reading interests should be included. More importantly, they should not be specifically and methodically excluded, which is what is happening.
The irony is that the people screaming about "cancel culture" are the same people that are cancelling this culture.
How many LGBTQ books are in any given library? I am betting it is less than 1% of all the books shelved.
The population is represented.
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 11, 2023, 09:23:24 AM
Quote from: dismalist on January 11, 2023, 09:06:28 AM
Democracy is a decision making method. It is without content of its own.
Libraries cannot own all books. Somehow, books must be chosen for each public library.
Having the local community choose by some democratic means seems completely justified, given that there are many libraries and many communities.
Based on the data you provided, the lowest level of LGB identifying people is over 1% (the real number is likely much higher than the survey shows for various reasons, but...). This is a minority group, but large enough that their reading interests should be included. More importantly, they should not be specifically and methodically excluded, which is what is happening.
The irony is that the people screaming about "cancel culture" are the same people that are cancelling this culture.
Who gets what share of the cash to buy one's preferred books of course could be handled differently and non locally.
But that's not the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is pollution!
Take a hypothetical case of a largely Jewish community with a local public library. Some nutjob from either inside or outside the community wants the library to hold
Mein Kampf. Suppose most people in the community would be offended by that, and would not use the library anymore. That one nutjob, if he got his way, would benefit, but lots of others would lose. It seems to me obvious that the local community must have a veto right.
Or take a different example, probably not even hypothetical, of a privately owned feminist bookstore. We would surely grant the owners of such stores the right to exclude anti-feminist publications and certainly not force such publications on them. And we free pressers can feel good about this because, hell, if you want to push anti-feminist opinions, open your own bookstore! Dare I say: Open your own library? ;-) That would be a solution, too!
So, who owns the library?
This question has remained unaddressed, except by me. I suspect it's because many would fear the outcome of a decentralized democratic procedure would leave them too few books. I doubt that needs to be worried about in many, many, but not all places.While I am sure there will be many different holding patterns by libraries, others seems to want guaranteed uniformity. But me, I care only if the procedure benefits the most for the least. And decentralized democracy does just that in this case.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 11, 2023, 09:41:16 AM
Quote from: dismalist on January 11, 2023, 09:06:28 AM
Democracy is a decision making method. It is without content of its own.
Libraries cannot own all books. Somehow, books must be chosen for each public library.
Having the local community choose by some democratic means seems completely justified, given that there are many libraries and many communities.
You're saying the same thing over and over.
The librarian is the "democratic means" by which books are selected. That's why you pay them.
The "local community" still needs to obey the law.
While you are not suggesting it directly, you are arguing de facto for book burnings or the equivalent by the local bigots and hotheads who are "hurt" by books they do not like. Anyplace or time you've hear of this before?
"...only by varied iteration can alien conceptions be forced on reluctant minds."
--Herbert Spencer, The Data of Ethics, 1879
Quote from: dismalist on January 11, 2023, 09:50:00 AM
So, who owns the library?
This question has remained unaddressed, except by me.
Have you read the thread?
America owns the libraries. We all do. Even your local tax dollars do not exclude you from being American and having to follow American laws and ethics.
That is an answer you avoid.
And what is not clear at all is that these theoretical books you allude to are offensive or bothersome to anyone but a very small cadre of reactionary, hyper-zealous nutjobs.
My state university library stocks Mein Kampf, The Turner Diaries, books from Focus on the Family, and The Anarchists' Cookbook. It's the way of libraries.
I'll give you credit for being stubborn after you have clearly lost and most of the participants have piled on you with pretty sound responses to your argument.
Quote from: dismalist on January 11, 2023, 09:54:29 AM
"...only by varied iteration can alien conceptions be forced on reluctant minds."
--Herbert Spencer, The Data of Ethics, 1879
Well, your reluctant mind sure isn't grasping alien conceptions.
That's a great slogan for a re-education camp, BTW. Love the "forced" business there. Very telling.
Good job.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 11, 2023, 09:58:21 AM
Quote from: dismalist on January 11, 2023, 09:50:00 AM
So, who owns the library?
This question has remained unaddressed, except by me.
Have you read the thread?
America owns the libraries. We all do. Even your local tax dollars do not exclude you from being American and having to follow American laws and ethics.
That is an answer you avoid.
And what is not clear at all is that these theoretical books you allude to are offensive or bothersome to anyone but a very small cadre of reactionary, hyper-zealous nutjobs.
My state university library stocks Mein Kampf, The Turner Diaries, books from Focus on the Family, and The Anarchists' Cookbook. It's the way of libraries.
I'll give you credit for being stubborn after you have clearly lost and most of the participants have piled on you with pretty sound responses to your argument.
Once again, you are assuming away the problem.
Quote from: dismalist on January 11, 2023, 10:01:13 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 11, 2023, 09:58:21 AM
Quote from: dismalist on January 11, 2023, 09:50:00 AM
So, who owns the library?
This question has remained unaddressed, except by me.
Have you read the thread?
America owns the libraries. We all do. Even your local tax dollars do not exclude you from being American and having to follow American laws and ethics.
That is an answer you avoid.
And what is not clear at all is that these theoretical books you allude to are offensive or bothersome to anyone but a very small cadre of reactionary, hyper-zealous nutjobs.
My state university library stocks Mein Kampf, The Turner Diaries, books from Focus on the Family, and The Anarchists' Cookbook. It's the way of libraries.
I'll give you credit for being stubborn after you have clearly lost and most of the participants have piled on you with pretty sound responses to your argument.
Once again, you are assuming away the problem.
What does "assuming away the problem" mean?
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 10, 2023, 03:56:00 PM
I appreciate the honest and thoughtful response, apl.
I too like to think that I would have risen to the new tide of civil rights. Probably neither of us would, or if we did, it would be a very qualified awakening.
Which leads me to wonder: there are different evaluations of scripture which come to a different perspective on the subject of homosexuality. There are Christians who, like Billy Graham desegregating his flock, openly accept homosexuality as Biblically endorsed, or at least not Biblically condemned. The view you espouse is not the only one. For instance:
https://www.hrc.org/resources/what-does-the-bible-say-about-homosexuality
https://reformationproject.org/biblical-case/
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/18/most-u-s-christian-groups-grow-more-accepting-of-homosexuality/
Yes, I've been aware of ideas like this. These interpretations simply go to show that, with enough sophistry, one can make Scripture say pretty much whatever one wants it to. Which is a great way to smooth out hard places, and remove challenges, and avoid hard choices and sacrifices in life--like the challenge of not holding and espousing and bowing to the conventional wisdom of the broader society at any given time. This sort of thing is precisely the reason why we have had churches convince themselves across so much of history that holy war was okay, that enslaving people was okay, that predatory capitalism was okay, and much more besides.
When Christians with conservative views on sexual morality aren't being insulted and ridiculed and denounced for holding the wrong views on things, we're being asked: "Why can't you people just ditch that one little part of your belief system that we disapprove of?" I saw a variation of this question posed a couple of weeks ago (12/25/22) in the
New York Times by regular columnist Nicholas Kristof, interviewing Russell Moore of
Christianity Today. It was a somewhat adversarial interview, and Moore defended himself ably in the limited space he was given. At one point he said that his opposition to abortion and his opposition to separating migrant children from the mothers at the border--one stance that liberal critics disapprove of, and one that they would be right-on with--both stem from his faith.
I oppose racial prejudice for the same reason that I can't approve of homosexual practices--they are both pretty clearly contrary to the Word of God. I can't just follow Scripture on those particular stances that the broader society approves of. Were I to do so, I would be giving my allegiance to the world, and not to God. I'm bound by my faith to follow God's Word, even in cases where the world might disapprove and want to exact a price from me for it.
Look, it's not like I just blindly follow what I've been taught or blindly follow tradition. I'm always examining what I do and what attitudes I hold in the light of Scripture. I've changed many things about myself over the years as I've deepened my awareness and understanding of Scripture. For one thing, I'm being calmer and more polite in this exchange than younger me would once have been. I've learned not to take offense, and to be more careful where possible not to give it. My attitudes toward gay people have in fact changed in some ways--I grew up with some pretty common stereotypes from the broader 1980s society that I've long since realized were off-base--as I've spent time with more of them. So have those of other Christians I know. But I and they just can't find our way to an honest interpretation of Scripture that would approve of gay marriage, gender reassignment, etc. I'm sorry I can't give you the response that you seek, but I honestly can't.
Sometimes Christians have to be prepared to face the disapproval of wider society. I've faced some of that personally, here and elsewhere. I expect that in the years to come the price to be paid for following God's word in our society, on multiple issues, will grow. Perhaps it will someday become quite large. But I'm prepared to pay it, because Jesus paid a much greater price for me.
I think one thing Christians need to accept is that while they have certainty of belief, that other people do not share that same certainty is not a failure on their part.
The age of imposing their beliefs on others because they believe they have access to an unquestionable truth is long over, and frankly, should never have existed in the first place.
Quote from: Scout on January 11, 2023, 02:58:20 PM
I think one thing Christians need to accept is that while they have certainty of belief, that other people do not share that same certainty is not a failure on their part.
The age of imposing their beliefs on others because they believe they have access to an unquestionable truth is long over, and frankly, should never have existed in the first place.
Which is fair enough. It would be nice if there could be a reciprocal acceptance that having such certainty of belief is not necessarily a failure on the part of the believer.
Quote from: apl68 on January 11, 2023, 01:54:27 PM
These interpretations simply go to show that, with enough sophistry, one can make Scripture say pretty much whatever one wants it to.
When Christians with conservative views on sexual morality aren't being insulted and ridiculed and denounced for holding the wrong views on things
pretty clearly contrary to the Word of God.
Look, it's not like I just blindly follow what I've been taught or blindly follow tradition.
I'm sorry I can't give you the response that you seek, but I honestly can't.
You know, apl, I would never challenge your personal convictions if conservative Christians did not feel that you have the right (or perhaps the obligation) to impose your religious judgments upon the broader society which clearly rejects at least part of what you want them to believe.
And, with all due respect, the articles I posted were written by experts, and while I do not have the knowledge to vouch for them, they are historically based and contextualized. That should be something to pay attention to: unless you speak Hebrew, Aramaic, or ancient Greek, you are not reading the original Word but a series of transmogrifications across two millennia.
Also with due respect, what you post here is the dogma which I have heard since I was a little kid, sometimes down to the wording itself. You are reciting beliefs, sometimes verbatim. It almost seems like you HAVE been taught what to say (forgive me for putting it in those terms...but...well...)
I do not seek an answer from you, but I do feel it is incumbent upon someone like me to stand up to hegemony when it occurs. I celebrate the peace that your Christianity brings you, I celebrate your right to speak, and I celebrate my right to disagree when your religion impinges upon my world too.
And I would never seek to insult a good person such as yourself----but how does it feel to be ridiculed and marginalized for who you are? Is there something to learn there?
Nevertheless, God bless you, apl.
TL/DR
Here's the bottom line for me. Why should your religious beliefs take precedence over my lack of same? Basically, why the hell should you be in charge? Nobody is making you have an abortion, marry a gay person, watch pornography, go to a drag show, or have to spend time with Heather and her 2 mommies. But you're so dang confident that you are wise enough to keep everybody else from engaging in same.
If your faith gives you comfort in times of sorrow, I'm happy for you. But far too much of what I see from "people of faith" is the use of religion as a method for social control. Frankly, drag queens and transexuals creep me the hell out. But who am I (or you) to deny them their lived realities.
I'm quite happy to let people of faith take comfort from their faith. But the amount of death, destruction, bigotry, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc that have been undertaken in the name of faith makes it VERY difficult for me to take your position seriously.
Quote from: apl68 on January 11, 2023, 03:20:52 PM
Quote from: Scout on January 11, 2023, 02:58:20 PM
I think one thing Christians need to accept is that while they have certainty of belief, that other people do not share that same certainty is not a failure on their part.
The age of imposing their beliefs on others because they believe they have access to an unquestionable truth is long over, and frankly, should never have existed in the first place.
Which is fair enough. It would be nice if there could be a reciprocal acceptance that having such certainty of belief is not necessarily a failure on the part of the believer.
I promise you that no one would give a damn what you believe, if the tenets of that belief weren't being imposed on society. Believe what you want- it's the actions of that belief that are the issue.
The persecution complex, which is such a fundamental part of that experience, gets so old. Virtually the entirety of western society is created to privilege Christianity. How many personal days do Christians need to take to celebrate most of their major holidays. Now ask how many personal days nonchristians have to take.....
Religious faith is fine at the personal level. But it's absolutely awful as a tool for determining public policy in a pluralistic country.
Quote from: secundem_artem on January 11, 2023, 05:39:58 PM
Religious faith is fine at the personal level. But it's absolutely awful as a tool for determining public policy in a pluralistic country.
I am surprised that none of us have made the connection to the controversy at Hamline University.
We can see how well that worked out for the censors.
Quote from: Scout on January 11, 2023, 05:30:25 PM
Quote from: apl68 on January 11, 2023, 03:20:52 PM
Quote from: Scout on January 11, 2023, 02:58:20 PM
I think one thing Christians need to accept is that while they have certainty of belief, that other people do not share that same certainty is not a failure on their part.
The age of imposing their beliefs on others because they believe they have access to an unquestionable truth is long over, and frankly, should never have existed in the first place.
Which is fair enough. It would be nice if there could be a reciprocal acceptance that having such certainty of belief is not necessarily a failure on the part of the believer.
I promise you that no one would give a damn what you believe, if the tenets of that belief weren't being imposed on society. Believe what you want- it's the actions of that belief that are the issue.
The persecution complex, which is such a fundamental part of that experience, gets so old. Virtually the entirety of western society is created to privilege Christianity. How many personal days do Christians need to take to celebrate most of their major holidays. Now ask how many personal days nonchristians have to take.....
I was going to comment several pages ago but just got around to it. I mentioned elsewhere that I'm a progressive Christian. Among other things, I'm the advisor to a campus ministry, I preach twice a month at my mainline Christian church, and I'm the founder and secretary of an LGBTQ support organization. I bring this up as a reminder that not all Christians see things the way apl68 does.
To me, the core of the argument is that public libraries should only be in the business of policing legality, not morality. I think it's fine that my local library has oodles of conservative Christian books, but also that they have copies of the Koran and LGBTQ materials and, I don't know, stuff about pagan religions. Whatever. Don't like it? Don't read it. But don't punish a pagan (for example) for exercising their freedom of religion while you provide free stuff to the majority. And don't marginalize someone because they are an outlier in their community.
Ostracizing LGBTQ individuals has real, serious consequences. I personally know someone who had to escape an abusive situation when they came out as gay as a teenager. Nationally, homelessness in teens and young adults is highly correlated with being gay or trans. 40% of transgender individuals have attempted suicide. Public libraries should be in the business of helping people become fully-functioning parts of society, not reinforcing stereotypes that lead to violence, broken relationships, and suicide.
Being as how I am also actually a librarian, though out of professional practice, I have been following this thread and wondering whether my participation here would be useful or incendiary. Ah well. A few thought questions seem a propos:
1) People do seem to be mostly avoiding the reality that libraries, as apl well notes, have both limited funds and limited space, and this means that they cannot buy or keep everything. So librarians do need to decide what to buy and to keep, and they do so with recourse to their professional training, and to the actually sometimes overwritten collections standards policies libraries mostly have (I am willing to allow that many East Podunk libraries probably do not have such). Libraries do need to at least attempt to access via ILL works that they do not have themselves, if a patron requests them, but even then, this would require that they can find said works in some library that would be willing to loan it to them. Maybe they cannot. Some works will just not find many if any public libraries willing to acquire them, and many such works are actually of a conservative religious nature (I have myself on occasion over the years tried to get idiosyncratic religious interest texts, and generally these are unavailable through pl ILL networks, though sometimes they can be gotten from academic library networks). What public libraries do *not* have to do, otoh, is decide to override their collections policies and acquire any book, just because one or more local patrons demand it.
2) Apl wisely noted that wrt opening up library facilities to outside groups, esp religious or political ones, allowing the local drag queen to have a presentation when the First Baptist Church cannot hold an evangelistic outreach, well that would just not go over well in many places in this country, and would doubtless spawn big-time backlash locally. And this would not be in the interests of those who would want to use libraries, as it might well produce political backlash that would curtail or even eliminate local pl funding. This should be obvious.
3) Like it or not, most Americans do not want drag queens giving presentations to children, even if nowadays many Americans will not acknowledge their discomfort here, in polls, let alone in interviews or questionnaires. And they certainly do not want limited library space and funding allotments used for such indoctrination efforts. Democracy rules in such matters, and, well, even those who see nothing wrong with having the local RuPaul show up to the elem school set, they also have things with which they have moral objections and would oppose letting libraries hold presentations from advocates thereof, let alone letting those libraries purchase literature from such perspectives. And I am not just talking about those espousing conservative religious expectations. The infamous North American Man-Boy Love Association, for instance. Before one screeches out, 'they advocate child rape', that is not true. They would say that they oppose rape and believe rapists should receive severe punishment. What they do advocate is an end to age of consent laws, allowing that 8yo to consent to sex with an adult. This still is horrifying to most people like us, as it certainly is to me, but it is not the same as advocating child rape. And, of course, well, ahem, those secular liberals who oppose NAMBLA's view here need to reckon with the unpleasant reality that even as they oppose eliminating age of consent laws, they do espouse allowing children to take sex reassignment hormone therapy, even surgical therapy, and they generally like giving increased 'agency' to children in many other respects other than the elimination of age of consent laws regarding adult-child sex.
I think everyone realizes that libraries have limited funds and cannot carry every book that is requested. However, those limited funds should be used to meet the needs of the community and not based on your personally religious or social beliefs. Banning books to appease a religious group is even further off side in an open society.
Regarding the outside groups, there is some nuance missing here. Trans groups are likely not trying to convert or indoctrinate you or your children, just raise awareness and acceptance. Discrimination, including violence against LGBT, and especially trans, is very real and problematic. To me, this justifies activities to raise awareness and acceptance. Most people are more open/accepting if they meet/know people with different backgrounds. I have not met any trans people who try to make me transition, or want to transition my children. I suspect most would not wish it on others, it is not an easy life.
Regarding gender reassignment in teens etc., Not everyone promoting LGB rights even supports that. It is a bit of a strawman, and the NAMBLA comparison is even more flawed. You conflate very different subjects.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 11, 2023, 07:40:01 PM
Quote from: secundem_artem on January 11, 2023, 05:39:58 PM
Religious faith is fine at the personal level. But it's absolutely awful as a tool for determining public policy in a pluralistic country.
I am surprised that none of us have made the connection to the controversy at Hamline University.
We can see how well that worked out for the censors.
Well, I did:
http://thefora.org/index.php?topic=2202.msg120619#msg120619
When we conflate our most personal selves (our values) with our public structures (laws), we tend to run into trouble. It's one reason the Son of the Big Guy told us to go into our inner rooms to pray and shut the door.
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 11, 2023, 10:32:10 PM
And they certainly do not want limited library space and funding allotments used for such indoctrination efforts.
This repeated BS tie between a lifestyle/belief you (the more generalized "you," not just you personally, K16) push as being necessarily and nefariously "indoctrination" is infuriating. Getting into costume and character in drag--or identifying as L/G/B/T/Q/non-cis/whatever else--is no more a straight and incontrovertible line to "indoctrination" than being straight necessitates pushing people to be hetero and ragingly sexually active. (Forcing one's moral and religious convictions on others, however. . . ?)
As the parent of a non-cis/trans child, this insistence that they and other non-hetero people are somehow always on the hunt to convert and/or sexually molest others is beyond intellectually and personally insulting to me, as are the repeated assertions by some here on the fora and elsewhere that my child and I are doomed to (a theoretical) eternity in (a theoretical) hell and that it is those people's praiseworthy duty to save us from that fate. If heaven truly exists and is filled with those who share such convictions, I have absolutely no desire to spend any time--now or in eternity--associated with such. I'm sure they would say "good riddance" to me--or at least, they should, rather than criticizing and trying to convert me/the heathen populace at large.
A member of the former Fora once reminded me that 95% of the world's problems could be avoided if people minded their own business and worried about themselves half as much as they worried about others. I don't worry about what others believe or how they choose to live their lives; it's none of my business unless and until they insert themselves into my life. If I take care of myself and treat others with respect, I have plenty to keep me busy, and I deserve that same courtesy.
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 11, 2023, 10:32:10 PM
And, of course, well, ahem, those secular liberals . . .
FWIW, I was born and raised in the church and washed in the blood. I can proof-text with you all day long. So what? Your (again, the corporate "your") arguments based on layers of logical fallacies won't convince a critical reader. Neither will smugness or bullying under the name of religion.
I do kind of miss being a "Dear Lady," though.
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 11, 2023, 10:32:10 PM
Being as how I am also actually a librarian,
Everyone here is an academic and knows all this stuff.
Quote
3) Like it or not, most Americans do not want drag queens giving presentations to children, even if nowadays many Americans will not acknowledge their discomfort here, in polls, let alone in interviews or questionnaires.
Can you substantiate this?
Again, I am going to ask you to prove your claim. It seems that you know how the people in your bubble think and react...but your scope ends there.
Quote
And they certainly do not want limited library space and funding allotments used for such indoctrination efforts.
One person's freedom is a bigot's "indoctrination."
I am against bigots "indoctrinating" kids with their hate.
Quote
Democracy rules in such matters, and, well, even those who see nothing wrong with having the local RuPaul show up to the elem school set, they also have things with which they have moral objections and would oppose letting libraries hold presentations from advocates thereof, let alone letting those libraries purchase literature from such perspectives.
Seems like their problems to me.
Remember, most of us have no trouble with LGBTQ folks. Remember that.
Sometimes you and some other posters have a very hard time processing this. You speak as if you speak from the moral authority of culture. But you do not.
Quote
And I am not just talking about those espousing conservative religious expectations. The infamous North American Man-Boy Love Association, for instance. Before one screeches out, 'they advocate child rape', that is not true. They would say that they oppose rape and believe rapists should receive severe punishment. What they do advocate is an end to age of consent laws, allowing that 8yo to consent to sex with an adult.
Riiiiiiiight. Let's just find the most extreme example as if that actually represents anything in our world. By these rights, the Baptists, Mormons, and definitely the Catholics should have nothing to do with public entities----at least NAMBLA brings their pathology out into the public.
As a classicist, what do you, kay, have to say about ancient Greece or Rome?
Quote
they do espouse allowing children to take sex reassignment hormone therapy, even surgical therapy, and they generally like giving increased 'agency' to children in many other respects other than the elimination of age of consent laws regarding adult-child sex.
Again, as a Christian, first you must admit the terrible history the church in general has with abusing children in various ways. They you can spout off about other belief systems.
Second, you should compare apples to apples. Personal agency is not the same thing as rape. Our old grad school friends have a trans teen. We see them every couple of months if we can, so we kind of get snap shots of this young person's life as hu slowly changes----and the difference between unhappy originally gendered person and the new trans person is much, much different. It has made me think about transgender issues much differently. One of my grad school cohort transitioned. I only see hu every couple of years at best, but we are Facebook friends, and the comfort and happiness levels are much, much different between then and now.
Third, you hopped on the new beast of burden for bigot conservatives now that you are losing the cultural war on gay rights. The things you believe are very ugly, my friend.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 11, 2023, 04:29:55 PM
And, with all due respect, the articles I posted were written by experts, and while I do not have the knowledge to vouch for them, they are historically based and contextualized. That should be something to pay attention to: unless you speak Hebrew, Aramaic, or ancient Greek, you are not reading the original Word but a series of transmogrifications across two millennia.
Also with due respect, what you post here is the dogma which I have heard since I was a little kid, sometimes down to the wording itself. You are reciting beliefs, sometimes verbatim. It almost seems like you HAVE been taught what to say (forgive me for putting it in those terms...but...well...)
I do not seek an answer from you, but I do feel it is incumbent upon someone like me to stand up to hegemony when it occurs. I celebrate the peace that your Christianity brings you, I celebrate your right to speak, and I celebrate my right to disagree when your religion impinges upon my world too.
Yes, the articles are all by credentialed experts. I could cite articles by other, equally credentialed experts as part of a point-by-point refutation of them. I'm pretty sure I could even find secular historians who would challenge some of what they've said regarding some aspects of ancient society. But you would feel the need to take exception with anything and anybody I could conceivably marshal in the debate. And the debate would go on and on.
So what's the point? You've just said that you don't actually seek an answer from me, and I never intended to try to persuade you through debate to adopt my views in the first place. What I was trying to do was share a particular perspective on libraries and how they figure in some of our society's contemporary controversies. When my views were challenged--and it's perfectly fair that somebody might challenge them--I tried, as best I could manage and in a polite manner, to explain why I and others who think like I do hold them. And when I was accused of holding my views due to mere unexamined prejudice and ignorance, I tried to answer these charges and clarify things. I am not just reciting dogma verbatim. I've spent my life examining what I believe. Maybe it sounds like dogma to you, but to me and others it's a living faith that we have long been actively and thoughtfully engaged with. It's a faith I've seen radically change many lives for the better, including my own.
When other people don't think like you, it's not
always because they are ignorant, or thoughtless, or have ignoble motives. That's one of the things that higher education, especially in the humanities is supposed to teach us. I learned that in college--both in my denominationally-affiliated undergrad alma mater, and in grad school at an R1 university. I think that's one of greatest things that higher ed has to offer. It's a big part of why I wish that society valued higher ed more, even as I've often heard you wish that society valued it more.
Because I hold the views I do on certain issues, it is evident that I will never be able to convince you that my mind is not straitjacketed by prejudice and ignorance. It's saddening to hear this from somebody I've long respected and tried to be on friendly terms with. But there's no sense continuing a futile struggle. I concede the debating field, if that's what this is supposed to be. You may consider yourself the victor. I'd like to return to friendly relations if you deem it possible and desirable. I can't promise that I will never again say anything here at The Fora that you might find offensive.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 10, 2023, 06:57:22 PM
You are "hurt" by books you "see?"
So you presume to gather "support" from other locals who have as fragile a belief system and as delicate a sensibility as you?
Some people are vegan, and belief eating meat is morally wrong. Some people make a living raising animals for food and belive doing so is an honourable profession.
Does the vegan have a "fragile belief" system, and/or is the vegan made "unsafe" by the existence of the farmer?
Does the farmer have a "fragile belief" system, and/or is the farmer made "unsafe" by the vegan's statement that eating meat is morally wrong?
Some people believe war is always wrong. Some people serve in the military.
Does the pacifist have a "fragile belief" system, and/or is the pacifist made "unsafe" by the military member's statement that war is sometimes justified?
Does the military member have a "fragile belief" system, and/or is the made "unsafe" by the pacifist's statement that war is never justified?
Should any of these people be allowed to call statements of their opponents' views "hate speech"?
Is a public institution, like a library,
better for actively promoting opportunities for one of these groups to speak? Or, would they be
better for being officially neutral, but perhaps promoting a debate between people on both sides? Or, would they be
better for being officially neutral and not hosting any presentation by either side or any debate, so that patrons of any particular viewpoint won't feel that their own views would be better to not be expressed?
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 12, 2023, 11:52:00 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 10, 2023, 06:57:22 PM
You are "hurt" by books you "see?"
So you presume to gather "support" from other locals who have as fragile a belief system and as delicate a sensibility as you?
Some people are vegan, and belief eating meat is morally wrong. Some people make a living raising animals for food and belive doing so is an honourable profession.
Does the vegan have a "fragile belief" system, and/or is the vegan made "unsafe" by the existence of the farmer?
Does the farmer have a "fragile belief" system, and/or is the farmer made "unsafe" by the vegan's statement that eating meat is morally wrong?
Some people believe war is always wrong. Some people serve in the military.
Does the pacifist have a "fragile belief" system, and/or is the pacifist made "unsafe" by the military member's statement that war is sometimes justified?
Does the military member have a "fragile belief" system, and/or is the made "unsafe" by the pacifist's statement that war is never justified?
Should any of these people be allowed to call statements of their opponents' views "hate speech"?
Is a public institution, like a library, better for actively promoting opportunities for one of these groups to speak? Or, would they be better for being officially neutral, but perhaps promoting a debate between people on both sides? Or, would they be better for being officially neutral and not hosting any presentation by either side or any debate, so that patrons of any particular viewpoint won't feel that their own views would be better to not be expressed?
Depending on your Bible choice, he/they were the pronouns, not she. Might want to edit your tag. " Jesus said to
her: "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though dead, yet will live. And whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Jesus said to her: "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though dead, yet will live. And whoever lives and believes in me will never die."
"
Quote from: apl68 on January 12, 2023, 11:34:35 AM
Yes, the articles are all by credentialed experts. I could cite articles by other, equally credentialed experts as part of a point-by-point refutation of them. I'm pretty sure I could even find secular historians who would challenge some of what they've said regarding some aspects of ancient society. But you would feel the need to take exception with anything and anybody I could conceivably marshal in the debate. And the debate would go on and on.
I think that is the point. You post as if the meanings and readings of Scripture are set.
It appears they are not.
How can you be so sure of your convictions?
Quote
So what's the point? You've just said that you don't actually seek an answer from me, and I never intended to try to persuade you through debate to adopt my views in the first place. What I was trying to do was share a particular perspective on libraries and how they figure in some of our society's contemporary controversies. When my views were challenged--and it's perfectly fair that somebody might challenge them--I tried, as best I could manage and in a polite manner, to explain why I and others who think like I do hold them. And when I was accused of holding my views due to mere unexamined prejudice and ignorance, I tried to answer these charges and clarify things. I am not just reciting dogma verbatim. I've spent my life examining what I believe. Maybe it sounds like dogma to you, but to me and others it's a living faith that we have long been actively and thoughtfully engaged with. It's a faith I've seen radically change many lives for the better, including my own.
The point is that, in a public forum you have posted your views and opinions. I like you a great deal, I respect Christianity a great deal, but I vehemently disagree with the notion that Christianity or conservatism should play a role in limiting what you as a librarian provide to the public. This is true of any fundamentalist beliefs or situations----the Muslim icon controversy at Hamline is a perfect example of a zealous religious beliefs stymying culture.
We need not talk about this if you don't want to, but if you post here I will probably respond.
And I point out again, apl, you seem injured by my challenges----and I am sorry for that----but imagine how you make LGBTQ people who for generations have been challenged, often with the worst consequences. Is that what Jesus would want you to do? Orientation is about how and who you love, not just sex.
Quote
When other people don't think like you, it's not always because they are ignorant, or thoughtless, or have ignoble motives.
Agreed. Now walk your talk, my friend. Mutual respect and understanding is actually what I am arguing for.
Quote
That's one of the things that higher education, especially in the humanities is supposed to teach us.
Agreed. And I learned it. Did you?
Quote
I wish that society valued higher ed more, even as I've often heard you wish that society valued it more.
Agreed. And I think lib arts ed has heralded the changes for the betters----attitudes towards LGBTQ among these. That is why conservatives tend to want to attack or even destroy lib arts education.
Quote
Because I hold the views I do on certain issues, it is evident that I will never be able to convince you that my mind is not straitjacketed by prejudice and ignorance.
I'm sorry, apl, but I do not see your views in any other way.
And again, while I might be upset that someone as nice and smart as you are would hold your particular views, I would have nothing to say if I did not see these entering the public realm.
Quote
It's saddening to hear this from somebody I've long respected and tried to be on friendly terms with. But there's no sense continuing a futile struggle. I concede the debating field, if that's what this is supposed to be. You may consider yourself the victor. I'd like to return to friendly relations if you deem it possible and desirable. I can't promise that I will never again say anything here at The Fora that you might find offensive.
I've always been friendly to you, apl, and will continue to be so. You are quite intelligent and wonderful. But on this issue I stick. We can talk any time.
Cheers! :-)
Ah Marshy, I see you trying to come up with analogies...but let's think these through, shall we?
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 12, 2023, 11:52:00 AM
Does the vegan have a "fragile belief" system, and/or is the vegan made "unsafe" by the existence of the farmer?
Does the farmer have a "fragile belief" system, and/or is the farmer made "unsafe" by the vegan's statement that eating meat is morally wrong?
Perhaps. But there is real suffering involved with factory farming, where the vast amount of our meat comes from. I mean, like REAL suffering. Not a book sitting on a self, but sentient animals living in filth and misery and then being brutally slaughtered.
Then there are the real ecological effects of factory farming, everything from land and water usage, pollution, the amount of grain that could easily feed millions of people but must be used to feed cattle, and methane gasses.
NOT the same thing as choosing not to go into a library because there is a book on the shelf that you do not like.
Now, do you really want to compare warfare with a book in a public library?????
Think about it, buddy...think about Hiroshima or Aleppo...and then think about a book quietly sitting on a library shelf...think about the Ukraine, imagine what is going on there right now...and then envision a patron so upset by a library book that hu does not want to read that hu flees, outraged, for a safe space because someone has written something hu does not agree with...
One of these things is not like the other. And it is not even really a matter of degree.
If your psyche is so sensitive that you cannot handle a library book, stay home.
If your belief system is so weak that a library book can challenge it, stay home.
Libraries should be neutral.
Ok, let's try one more tack-- I believe firmly that most Americans would not want their children to go to a library presentation from the local RuPaul, because they do not want their children exposed to transgenderism in an official capacity such as would be shown by a pl, as they think the children might view such presentations as official promotion of the validity of the transgender lifestyle. But if the drag queen is to be allowed to have such a presentation at the pl, there really would not be any valid reason not to allow the First Fundamentalist Worship Center to hold an evangelistic outreach at the library. So, how many of you who would see no problem with having their kid attend the drag queen presentation, would be a-ok with their 8yo coming home to announce that he had just encountered the local Billy Graham at the pl, and had converted to fundamentalist Christianity? And now wants you to take him to the FFWC on Sunday morning, thanks very much?
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 12, 2023, 11:52:00 AM
Some people are vegan, and belief eating meat is morally wrong. Some people make a living raising animals for food and belive doing so is an honourable profession.
Does the vegan have a "fragile belief" system, and/or is the vegan made "unsafe" by the existence of the farmer?
Does the farmer have a "fragile belief" system, and/or is the farmer made "unsafe" by the vegan's statement that eating meat is morally wrong?
Some people believe war is always wrong. Some people serve in the military.
Does the pacifist have a "fragile belief" system, and/or is the pacifist made "unsafe" by the military member's statement that war is sometimes justified?
Does the military member have a "fragile belief" system, and/or is the made "unsafe" by the pacifist's statement that war is never justified?
Should any of these people be allowed to call statements of their opponents' views "hate speech"?
Is a public institution, like a library, better for actively promoting opportunities for one of these groups to speak? Or, would they be better for being officially neutral, but perhaps promoting a debate between people on both sides? Or, would they be better for being officially neutral and not hosting any presentation by either side or any debate, so that patrons of any particular viewpoint won't feel that their own views would be better to not be expressed?
Eating meat
is morally wrong. So is war, and so is an individual soldier's participation in a war. You'd be hard-pressed to find an ethicist who doesn't agree. These are not interesting ethical questions. What concerns them, rather, is what's
permissible, especially in non-ideal conditions.
That some people believe one thing and others another is really neither here nor there, especially when the beliefs in question are unexamined or inconsistent. Or, indeed, wrong. Some people believe the earth is flat, after all, but they're wrong. And frankly, I think that when push comes to shove, even ordinary people will concede that it's wrong to eat meat, wage war, etc. They may believe that some benefits outweigh the wrong, but very, very, very few will double down on the rightness of those actions, and even fewer will be capable of producing reasons for that belief.
I say this from experience, by the way, having taught these topics in intro ethics to
literally thousands of students.
The reality that the earth is not flat is objectively demonstrated scientific fact.
The idea that it is immoral to eat meat is a belief, an ideology. What are morals, and where do they come from? And if I wish to be called or classified as an 'ethicist', how do I go about acquiring this status? This is not the same as being able to teach a class about ethics, especially from an historical or cross-cultural/ cross-religions or philosophical basis, of course.
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 12, 2023, 10:31:04 PM
Ok, let's try one more tack-- I believe firmly that most Americans would not want their children to go to a library presentation from the local RuPaul, because they do not want their children exposed to transgenderism in an official capacity such as would be shown by a pl, as they think the children might view such presentations as official promotion of the validity of the transgender lifestyle. But if the drag queen is to be allowed to have such a presentation at the pl, there really would not be any valid reason not to allow the First Fundamentalist Worship Center to hold an evangelistic outreach at the library. So, how many of you who would see no problem with having their kid attend the drag queen presentation, would be a-ok with their 8yo coming home to announce that he had just encountered the local Billy Graham at the pl, and had converted to fundamentalist Christianity? And now wants you to take him to the FFWC on Sunday morning, thanks very much?
Ever hear of Sunday school?
Children are routinely exposed to fundamentalist religion literally every day. Every day there is a child is brought into a fundamentalist church----usually by parents, I imagine. This may not be in a library, but children are integral to the message and mission of all fundamentalist churches (https://sugarcreek.net/children/) I am aware of. "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these."
I would even go so far as to say that fundamental religions are heavy into guilt, fear, and indoctrination. That's not the way you see it, huh kay? Only drag queens can indoctrinate in your world.
This angle never occurred to you, did it?
I have no problem with this. That is the fundamentalist families' responsibility for their children.
So if you have RuPaul in a library, that library should be open to Franklin Graham. Graham need not use the library because he has a nifty mega-church or two (where people will be escorted out by security if they disagree with him), but as long as the library does not sponsor, recruit, or profit off the prophet, I have no problem with him being there. Again, I think the Supreme Court has ruled that public spaces need to be open to all community groups, including religious ones----but I might be wrong on that point.
If my hypothetical kid came home and said, "Dad, I wanna be a fundamentalist [name your religion]" I would say, "I am your parent and it is my responsibility, not the library's, to guide you [in whatever direction I think is best for my child]. But I am glad you learned something about the world and met people who are not like you, that helps fight prejudice."
I love how certain posters are so convinced that they are victims that they seek duplicity.
Nice try.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 12, 2023, 10:34:12 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 12, 2023, 11:52:00 AM
Some people are vegan, and belief eating meat is morally wrong. Some people make a living raising animals for food and belive doing so is an honourable profession.
Does the vegan have a "fragile belief" system, and/or is the vegan made "unsafe" by the existence of the farmer?
Does the farmer have a "fragile belief" system, and/or is the farmer made "unsafe" by the vegan's statement that eating meat is morally wrong?
Some people believe war is always wrong. Some people serve in the military.
Does the pacifist have a "fragile belief" system, and/or is the pacifist made "unsafe" by the military member's statement that war is sometimes justified?
Does the military member have a "fragile belief" system, and/or is the made "unsafe" by the pacifist's statement that war is never justified?
Should any of these people be allowed to call statements of their opponents' views "hate speech"?
Is a public institution, like a library, better for actively promoting opportunities for one of these groups to speak? Or, would they be better for being officially neutral, but perhaps promoting a debate between people on both sides? Or, would they be better for being officially neutral and not hosting any presentation by either side or any debate, so that patrons of any particular viewpoint won't feel that their own views would be better to not be expressed?
Eating meat is morally wrong. So is war, and so is an individual soldier's participation in a war. You'd be hard-pressed to find an ethicist who doesn't agree. These are not interesting ethical questions. What concerns them, rather, is what's permissible, especially in non-ideal conditions.
My point was that there are all kinds of moral questions that are a very big deal to some people, and much less so to others. (This is independent of which "side" of the issue they're on.) Public institutions (like libraries) should avoid taking strong stances on things on which there is a range of opinion, since they are to serve all members of society as equally as possible.
(So, much as I've tried to make it clear, I'm for libraries having a
lot of leeway about what books to
have in the library; my concern is for what public
events the library holds or hosts.)
The one thing the library should be "activist" about, if we must think in those terms, is letting people be free to
choose what to read. As long as all patrons are treated with respect, (unless they've violating the kinds of rules mentioned above), then the library should not be trying to subtly influence or endorse patrons' ideas or viewpoints. (In the same way, election officials should only be "activist" about making it possible for people to vote; they should not be trying to influence voters' political or religious beliefs, lifestyle choices, etc.)
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 13, 2023, 06:56:43 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 12, 2023, 10:34:12 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 12, 2023, 11:52:00 AM
Some people are vegan, and belief eating meat is morally wrong. Some people make a living raising animals for food and belive doing so is an honourable profession.
Does the vegan have a "fragile belief" system, and/or is the vegan made "unsafe" by the existence of the farmer?
Does the farmer have a "fragile belief" system, and/or is the farmer made "unsafe" by the vegan's statement that eating meat is morally wrong?
Some people believe war is always wrong. Some people serve in the military.
Does the pacifist have a "fragile belief" system, and/or is the pacifist made "unsafe" by the military member's statement that war is sometimes justified?
Does the military member have a "fragile belief" system, and/or is the made "unsafe" by the pacifist's statement that war is never justified?
Should any of these people be allowed to call statements of their opponents' views "hate speech"?
Is a public institution, like a library, better for actively promoting opportunities for one of these groups to speak? Or, would they be better for being officially neutral, but perhaps promoting a debate between people on both sides? Or, would they be better for being officially neutral and not hosting any presentation by either side or any debate, so that patrons of any particular viewpoint won't feel that their own views would be better to not be expressed?
Eating meat is morally wrong. So is war, and so is an individual soldier's participation in a war. You'd be hard-pressed to find an ethicist who doesn't agree. These are not interesting ethical questions. What concerns them, rather, is what's permissible, especially in non-ideal conditions.
My point was that there are all kinds of moral questions that are a very big deal to some people, and much less so to others. (This is independent of which "side" of the issue they're on.) Public institutions (like libraries) should avoid taking strong stances on things on which there is a range of opinion, since they are to serve all members of society as equally as possible.
(So, much as I've tried to make it clear, I'm for libraries having a lot of leeway about what books to have in the library; my concern is for what public events the library holds or hosts.)
The one thing the library should be "activist" about, if we must think in those terms, is letting people be free to choose what to read. As long as all patrons are treated with respect, (unless they've violating the kinds of rules mentioned above), then the library should not be trying to subtly influence or endorse patrons' ideas or viewpoints. (In the same way, election officials should only be "activist" about making it possible for people to vote; they should not be trying to influence voters' political or religious beliefs, lifestyle choices, etc.)
I guess it depends on how you view the role of a library in the current age. I view it as much more than a collection of books, and believe it should provide public space for people to use. Having a reading or meeting, provided there is an area for this, should be open to whoever wants to use it provided they are not violating the law. To me, this would include LBG groups, religious groups, etc. None of these should be endorsed or promoted by the library (beyond listing it in their calendar), they are just providing space for community groups to use.
If you dont want to attend, dont. I dont see why the librarians should be involved in any moral judgements on this.
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 13, 2023, 07:14:55 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 13, 2023, 06:56:43 AM
(So, much as I've tried to make it clear, I'm for libraries having a lot of leeway about what books to have in the library; my concern is for what public events the library holds or hosts.)
The one thing the library should be "activist" about, if we must think in those terms, is letting people be free to choose what to read. As long as all patrons are treated with respect, (unless they've violating the kinds of rules mentioned above), then the library should not be trying to subtly influence or endorse patrons' ideas or viewpoints. (In the same way, election officials should only be "activist" about making it possible for people to vote; they should not be trying to influence voters' political or religious beliefs, lifestyle choices, etc.)
I guess it depends on how you view the role of a library in the current age. I view it as much more than a collection of books, and believe it should provide public space for people to use. Having a reading or meeting, provided there is an area for this, should be open to whoever wants to use it provided they are not violating the law. To me, this would include LBG groups, religious groups, etc. None of these should be endorsed or promoted by the library (beyond listing it in their calendar), they are just providing space for community groups to use.
If you dont want to attend, dont. I dont see why the librarians should be involved in any moral judgements on this.
That's a reasonable approach; it coveys the kind of intentional neutrality that it should.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 12, 2023, 11:34:19 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 12, 2023, 10:31:04 PM
Ok, let's try one more tack-- I believe firmly that most Americans would not want their children to go to a library presentation from the local RuPaul, because they do not want their children exposed to transgenderism in an official capacity such as would be shown by a pl, as they think the children might view such presentations as official promotion of the validity of the transgender lifestyle. But if the drag queen is to be allowed to have such a presentation at the pl, there really would not be any valid reason not to allow the First Fundamentalist Worship Center to hold an evangelistic outreach at the library. So, how many of you who would see no problem with having their kid attend the drag queen presentation, would be a-ok with their 8yo coming home to announce that he had just encountered the local Billy Graham at the pl, and had converted to fundamentalist Christianity? And now wants you to take him to the FFWC on Sunday morning, thanks very much?
Ever hear of Sunday school?
Children are routinely exposed to fundamentalist religion literally every day. Every day there is a child is brought into a fundamentalist church----usually by parents, I imagine. This may not be in a library, but children are integral to the message and mission of all fundamentalist churches (https://sugarcreek.net/children/) I am aware of. "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these."
I would even go so far as to say that fundamental religions are heavy into guilt, fear, and indoctrination. That's not the way you see it, huh kay? Only drag queens can indoctrinate in your world.
This angle never occurred to you, did it?
I have no problem with this. That is the fundamentalist families' responsibility for their children.
So if you have RuPaul in a library, that library should be open to Franklin Graham. Graham need not use the library because he has a nifty mega-church or two (where people will be escorted out by security if they disagree with him), but as long as the library does not sponsor, recruit, or profit off the prophet, I have no problem with him being there. Again, I think the Supreme Court has ruled that public spaces need to be open to all community groups, including religious ones----but I might be wrong on that point.
If my hypothetical kid came home and said, "Dad, I wanna be a fundamentalist [name your religion]" I would say, "I am your parent and it is my responsibility, not the library's, to guide you [in whatever direction I think is best for my child]. But I am glad you learned something about the world and met people who are not like you, that helps fight prejudice."
I love how certain posters are so convinced that they are victims that they seek duplicity.
Nice try.
How, pray tell, will these impressionable young children get to the library events without their parents knowing ahead of time?
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 13, 2023, 07:49:53 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 13, 2023, 07:14:55 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 13, 2023, 06:56:43 AM
(So, much as I've tried to make it clear, I'm for libraries having a lot of leeway about what books to have in the library; my concern is for what public events the library holds or hosts.)
The one thing the library should be "activist" about, if we must think in those terms, is letting people be free to choose what to read. As long as all patrons are treated with respect, (unless they've violating the kinds of rules mentioned above), then the library should not be trying to subtly influence or endorse patrons' ideas or viewpoints. (In the same way, election officials should only be "activist" about making it possible for people to vote; they should not be trying to influence voters' political or religious beliefs, lifestyle choices, etc.)
I guess it depends on how you view the role of a library in the current age. I view it as much more than a collection of books, and believe it should provide public space for people to use. Having a reading or meeting, provided there is an area for this, should be open to whoever wants to use it provided they are not violating the law. To me, this would include LBG groups, religious groups, etc. None of these should be endorsed or promoted by the library (beyond listing it in their calendar), they are just providing space for community groups to use.
If you dont want to attend, dont. I dont see why the librarians should be involved in any moral judgements on this.
That's a reasonable approach; it coveys the kind of intentional neutrality that it should.
Agreed--people can choose which events to attend just as they choose which books to read.
Continuing the analogy with vegetarians/vegans, their moral standpoint should not impact the ability of a steakhouse to operate, or for me to eat meat. Don't want to eat meat? Then don't.
Quote from: pgher on January 13, 2023, 08:01:08 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 13, 2023, 07:49:53 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 13, 2023, 07:14:55 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 13, 2023, 06:56:43 AM
(So, much as I've tried to make it clear, I'm for libraries having a lot of leeway about what books to have in the library; my concern is for what public events the library holds or hosts.)
The one thing the library should be "activist" about, if we must think in those terms, is letting people be free to choose what to read. As long as all patrons are treated with respect, (unless they've violating the kinds of rules mentioned above), then the library should not be trying to subtly influence or endorse patrons' ideas or viewpoints. (In the same way, election officials should only be "activist" about making it possible for people to vote; they should not be trying to influence voters' political or religious beliefs, lifestyle choices, etc.)
I guess it depends on how you view the role of a library in the current age. I view it as much more than a collection of books, and believe it should provide public space for people to use. Having a reading or meeting, provided there is an area for this, should be open to whoever wants to use it provided they are not violating the law. To me, this would include LBG groups, religious groups, etc. None of these should be endorsed or promoted by the library (beyond listing it in their calendar), they are just providing space for community groups to use.
If you dont want to attend, dont. I dont see why the librarians should be involved in any moral judgements on this.
That's a reasonable approach; it coveys the kind of intentional neutrality that it should.
Agreed--people can choose which events to attend just as they choose which books to read.
Just to clarify; the kind of space that is OK for all kinds of groups to book is segregated, such as a meeting room. Any event held in the main area of the library, or a sub-area such as the children's section, doesn't allow patrons to "opt out" of being there. For people to be able to opt out, the space needs to be separated so that people can go about their normal library business without going into or through it.
The free exercise clause protects freedom of religion, but it doesn't mean you have the freedom to impose your religious beliefs on everyone else. We also have freedom from religion covered by the establishment clause.
While there has surely been taxpayer support for public libraries, I wonder how much taxpayer support there would be for public meeting halls?
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 12, 2023, 10:43:05 PM
The idea that it is immoral to eat meat is a belief, an ideology.
Given the strength of argument behind it, it's rather stronger than that.
It's true that you can't point your microscope to moral facts of the matter. But just as with science, not all evidence is direct. And here, there's a significant confluence of indirect evidence. And direct evidence for and against allied propositions
does enter into it. This allows us to draw some robust inferences.
Consider the reasons people have for eating meat; these basically never boil down to its
necessity. What's more, when pressed, ordinary people will almost always agree that causing unnecessary harm, suffering, or death is morally wrong. For anyone who does so, it's a simple enough matter to show that, as a matter of objective fact, eating meat causes unnecessary harm, suffering, or death--indeed, that eating meat at all is objectively unnecessary. Similarly, many ordinary people will justify eating fish to themselves because fish are not intelligent, or cannot feel pain. These posits are objectively false (they
may be true of some arthropods, but the evidence is mixed). Again, anyone who has that commitment is simply mistaken about the extension of their core commitment to not harming things.
Like i said above, there are very few people out there whose moral commitments boil down to an outright acceptance that eating meat is morally good (or even neutral). When they do, my experience has been that they are not founded on any kind of reflection on the ethics in question. Just about everyone, when pressed, agrees that it is wrong. A solid majority then cite mitigating reasons, and these are usually perfectly evaluable in terms of real-world observable facts.
QuoteWhat are morals, and where do they come from?
That's a question for a meta-ethicist. Most people (and a plurality of ethicists and meta-ethicists) appear to be some stripe of moral realist (//http://), which means that they believe there are matters of moral fact. I incline towards moral fictionalism (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism/), which is a species of moral anti-realism (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-anti-realism/) but (1) that's above the fora's paygrade (and it doesn't quite mean what it sounds like it means), and (2) I'm not a meta-ethicist.
Quote
And if I wish to be called or classified as an 'ethicist', how do I go about acquiring this status? This is not the same as being able to teach a class about ethics, especially from an historical or cross-cultural/ cross-religions or philosophical basis, of course.
An ethicist is a professional with significant formal training in ethics, usually through a philosophy department, a bioethics department (often these are part of the philosophy department), or as part of a medical institution's bioethics unit. They will have significant training in applied ethics, ethical theory, and at least some meta-ethics.
Quote from: Istiblennius on January 13, 2023, 09:06:47 AM
The free exercise clause protects freedom of religion, but it doesn't mean you have the freedom to impose your religious beliefs on everyone else. We also have freedom from religion covered by the establishment clause.
The odd loophole is that any beliefs which can be expressed in completely
non-religious terms can in principle be imposed at will.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 13, 2023, 10:07:10 AM
Quote from: Istiblennius on January 13, 2023, 09:06:47 AM
The free exercise clause protects freedom of religion, but it doesn't mean you have the freedom to impose your religious beliefs on everyone else. We also have freedom from religion covered by the establishment clause.
The odd loophole is that any beliefs which can be expressed in completely non-religious terms can in principle be imposed at will.
Oh Marshy...
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 13, 2023, 11:07:07 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 13, 2023, 10:07:10 AM
Quote from: Istiblennius on January 13, 2023, 09:06:47 AM
The free exercise clause protects freedom of religion, but it doesn't mean you have the freedom to impose your religious beliefs on everyone else. We also have freedom from religion covered by the establishment clause.
The odd loophole is that any beliefs which can be expressed in completely non-religious terms can in principle be imposed at will.
Oh Marshy...
Oh Wahoo...
Great rebuttal, isn't it?
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 13, 2023, 06:56:43 AM
My point was that there are all kinds of moral questions that are a very big deal to some people, and much less so to others. (This is independent of which "side" of the issue they're on.) Public institutions (like libraries) should avoid taking strong stances on things on which there is a range of opinion, since they are to serve all members of society as equally as possible.
Agreed. I have said this several times. In fact, no one is arguing that libraries should take a stance on moral issues. No one has said that. What are you arguing?
Quote
(So, much as I've tried to make it clear, I'm for libraries having a lot of leeway about what books to have in the library; my concern is for what public events the library holds or hosts.)
No, that hasn't been clear.
Quote
The one thing the library should be "activist" about, if we must think in those terms, is letting people be free to choose what to read.
You know that this is where this whole thing started-----a group of parents decided certain books should be removed from the local library so no one could read them.
What'cha'sayin' there, Marshvarmint?
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 13, 2023, 11:10:39 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 13, 2023, 11:07:07 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 13, 2023, 10:07:10 AM
Quote from: Istiblennius on January 13, 2023, 09:06:47 AM
The free exercise clause protects freedom of religion, but it doesn't mean you have the freedom to impose your religious beliefs on everyone else. We also have freedom from religion covered by the establishment clause.
The odd loophole is that any beliefs which can be expressed in completely non-religious terms can in principle be imposed at will.
Oh Marshy...
Oh Wahoo...
Great rebuttal, isn't it?
Rebuttal to what?
That "any beliefs which can be expressed in completely
non-religious terms can in principle be imposed at will."
What are you talking about? What beliefs are "imposed at will?"
When I was of young and tender years, the public library bestowed upon me a "youth " card, which prohibited me from entering the dark and evil realm of ....gasp....adult books. My youth card, clutched in my grimy little hand, let me enter only the door marked "Childrens". Ah, sweet bird of youth.....to which, of course, I was denied access.
Quote from: nebo113 on January 14, 2023, 06:12:46 AM
When I was of young and tender years, the public library bestowed upon me a "youth " card, which prohibited me from entering the dark and evil realm of ....gasp....adult books. My youth card, clutched in my grimy little hand, let me enter only the door marked "Childrens". Ah, sweet bird of youth.....to which, of course, I was denied access.
My mother has told me of having to read something by Faulkner for a high school assignment--this was back when he was still a contemporary author--and being challenged by the librarian over trying to check it out. I think she had to get her teacher to vouch for it being an actual assignment. And Mom was nobody's idea of teen rebel back in the day.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 13, 2023, 11:14:43 AM
That "any beliefs which can be expressed in completely non-religious terms can in principle be imposed at will."
What are you talking about? What beliefs are "imposed at will?"
Consider the question about eating meat.
A (non-religious) vegan can claim that eating meat is unethical because it requires killing animals.
A 7th Day Adventist can claim that eating meat is unethical because it requires killing animals,
because the creation narrative only lists plants as food for humans.
My point is that the two claims are essentially the same in principle (killing animals is immoral) and in intent (prohibit eating meat) but the first is OK to discuss, while the second is off limits. It's odd because the first simply makes an assertion (killing animals is wrong) while the second actually provides rationale (albeit religious) for it.
For almost any issue where there is a "religious" argument, there is at least one (and sometimes more) "non-religious" argument which can be made with a similar claim but lacking the "religious" justification and which is therefore officially OK.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 14, 2023, 07:18:01 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 13, 2023, 11:14:43 AM
That "any beliefs which can be expressed in completely non-religious terms can in principle be imposed at will."
What are you talking about? What beliefs are "imposed at will?"
Consider the question about eating meat.
A (non-religious) vegan can claim that eating meat is unethical because it requires killing animals.
A 7th Day Adventist can claim that eating meat is unethical because it requires killing animals, because the creation narrative only lists plants as food for humans.
My point is that the two claims are essentially the same in principle (killing animals is immoral) and in intent (prohibit eating meat) but the first is OK to discuss, while the second is off limits. It's odd because the first simply makes an assertion (killing animals is wrong) while the second actually provides rationale (albeit religious) for it.
For almost any issue where there is a "religious" argument, there is at least one (and sometimes more) "non-religious" argument which can be made with a similar claim but lacking the "religious" justification and which is therefore officially OK.
None of those can be "imposed at will" by anybody.