Libraries and the Culture Wars

[Wahoo Redux]

Being as how I am also actually a librarian,

Everyone here is an academic and knows all this stuff.

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. 

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.

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.

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?

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.

[apl68]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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?

[nebo113]

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."
"

[Wahoo Redux]

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!  :-)

[Wahoo Redux]

Ah Marshy, I see you trying to come up with analogies...but let's think these through, shall we?

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.

[kaysixteen]

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?

[Parasaurolophus]

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.

[kaysixteen]

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.

[Wahoo Redux]

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 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.

[marshwiggle]

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.)

[Kron3007]

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.

   

[marshwiggle]

(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.

[pgher]

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 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?

(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.

[marshwiggle]

(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.