Libraries and the Culture Wars

[dismalist]

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.

[Wahoo Redux]

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?

[apl68]

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.

[Scout]

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.

[apl68]

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.

[Wahoo Redux]

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. 

[secundem_artem]

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.

[Scout]

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.....

[secundem_artem]

Religious faith is fine at the personal level.  But it's absolutely awful as a tool for determining public policy in a pluralistic country.

[Wahoo Redux]

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. 

[pgher]

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.

[kaysixteen]

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.

[Kron3007]

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.

[little bongo]

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.

[AmLitHist]

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.

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.