[Masthead] Fair ~ 42°F  
Wind Advisory
Wednesday, Apr. 16, 2014

Ban the Bible!

Posted Saturday, April 17, 2010, at 8:23 PM

In the fall of 2006, Marshall's public library was in the midst of a controversy about removing two books from its shelves. "Blankets" and "Fun Home" are graphic novels that some residents found offensive. Here is just one of the stories on that debate: www.marshallnews.com/story/1171005.html.

Public comment was allowed at a hearing in October 2006; what follows here is the text of my remarks. At the time, I worked for the paper, but I was not a reporter. I have twice been accused, unfairly, I believe, of advocating the banning of the Bible on the basis of these remarks. Judge for yourself.

If we are going to decide what others can read, or not read, then we cannot begin with "Blankets" or "Fun Home," the books being challenged tonight.

There is another book, which, based on its contents, poses far more danger to children than these two largely autobiographical works.

The book I am speaking of discusses the range of human sexual behavior and misbehavior, including adultery, nudity, multiple marriage, and prostitution. Contained within its covers are graphic descriptions of the attempted murder of a child by his own father, murder among brothers, the unfair trial and brutal murder of a peace-loving religious leader, violent warfare, even witchcraft.

This book is no doubt found in this and every library in this country, and is the foundation of religious cults the world over, some of which have been considered dangerous and subversive. It is sold in every bookstore. It is easily available online for free. It consistently reaches the bestseller lists, outselling every author from Grisham to Clancy, and has been translated into untold numbers of languages. It's been around for hundreds and hundreds of years -- we know it as The Holy Bible.

Obviously, I'm being facetious. Getting the Bible banned is a job no one would undertake, at least no one in his or her right mind, and I'm not suggesting that here. What I am suggesting, actually insisting on, is that no book should be removed from any library for any reason. As Americans, we are committed to free speech and a free press, and that includes the ability, some might go so far as to say the DUTY, to allow the presentation of ideas and thoughts of whatever nature to be presented for all to investigate, evaluate, and accept or discard according to their own principles.

Now, I am just one small person in the world and in history, and others more intelligent and certainly more famous than I have had a great deal to say about censorship, so I will give you their thoughts:

Claude-Adrien Helvétius, French philosopher: To limit the press is to insult a nation; to prohibit reading of certain books is to declare the inhabitants to be either fools or slaves.

Potter Stewart, Justice of the Supreme Court: Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.

Tommy Smothers, comedian: The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen.

Henry Steele Commager, historian: The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion.


Comments
Showing most recent comments first
[Show in chronological order instead]

Let it be said,

that when this blog went to bed,

Ceymore never had pled.

See more, or say more,

no light would he shed.

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Sat, Apr 10, 2010, at 12:48 AM

Say Ceymore are we to see Ceymore explained? Why do you not say so that we may see?

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Tue, Apr 6, 2010, at 11:38 AM

smokin' Chettah -

I understand your undying loyalty to Kathy,

I have my answer to the original question.

So thank you.

She may not have negative feelings, but perhaps she dosen't have any postitive,,,,,,,,,,, again what have I written that isn't right?

-- Posted by ceymore on Tue, Apr 6, 2010, at 7:54 AM

Smokin cheetah, pauldouglas,

As of yet, nothing of which I've written has been reputiated.

I stand by my post of Thu, Apr 1, 2010, at 8:39 PM I believe the answer is had.

In truth the only reason this bog has been read so much and commented on so much, is that only one person has the testicular fortitude to exclaim, "the king isn't wearing any clothes" and others are following along, much like the crowd in " The Emporers New Clothes".

My question waits..................

-- Posted by ceymore on Sun, Apr 4, 2010, at 10:06 PM

ceymore,

would you have been equally as angry if Ms. Fairchild would have based her premise around "Ban the Torah!" or "Ban the Koran!". One book which has spoken the word of G-d for 1300 years longer than the bible and another for 600 years less, respectively.

Just curious...

-- Posted by pauldouglas on Sat, Apr 3, 2010, at 3:34 PM

Ceymore I have one question that persists. Say more?

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Fri, Apr 2, 2010, at 2:56 PM

Are we going to try for 200 comments? We're off to a good start! :-)

-- Posted by Eric Crump on Fri, Apr 2, 2010, at 8:30 AM

Wouldn't be funny when we die IF there is no god then all this arguing like a bunch of school kids was for nothin. Please make sure so noone trys judging me I did say IF. There is only one judge and I know none of you are it so just let go already and move on with life and start a new topic.

-- Posted by midniterebel on Fri, Apr 2, 2010, at 8:26 AM

Ceymore is it "say more"?

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Thu, Apr 1, 2010, at 11:36 PM

Taxedpayer,

this is the caps I got - and date, and so Smokin chettah doesen't have a coronary, I've included date and time, as I have been accused by the mental midgets of fabricating.....

I DO NOT HAVE NEGATIVE VIEWS TOWARDS THE BIBLE AND/OR RELIGION IN GENERAL. IF THAT IS WHAT YOU UNDERSTAND FROM WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN, YOU ARE MISTAKEN.-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Sun, Mar 14, 2010, at 2:44 PM

There is another book, which, based on its contents, poses far more danger to children than these two largely autobiographical works. -- we know it as The Holy Bible.---Kathy Fairchild

I DO BELIEVE THAT KATHY DOESN'T HAVE negative views towards the Bible - I'm only asking does she hold it to the SAME STANDARDS, or HIGHER than the questioned books? or are her views just neutral?

To this there has been absolutely no reply.....I do not wish to jump to conclusions, so does she hold it to be equally as important as the books, or more diabolical than the "graphic" novels?

Sure she was being facetious about banning the Bible, but she never claimed being facetious about it presenting a greater danger than the questioned books.

The only question asked was to what standard does she hold the Bible?

Taxedpayer, I guess your'e right, though she doesn't possess the ability to address the question directly, her indirect answer is obvious.

She has a right to her opinions, but by having a blog, isn't that an invitation for questions or comments? She made it public, she presents the topics, and she waits for her soothe sayers to rally around her.

What have I written in any comment that isn't true?

-- Posted by ceymore on Thu, Apr 1, 2010, at 8:39 PM

Ceymore-- Looks to me like Kathy answered your question. Just because you don't like the way the answer was phrased (apparently) doesn't mean the answer doesn't exist. One time she even resorted to ALL CAPS to make her views loud as well as clear. Give it up, willya?

-- Posted by taxedpayer on Thu, Apr 1, 2010, at 5:43 PM

Kathy, why refer to yourself in the third person?

Koeller77, you need to stick up for your mom, but intelligence is better than sarcasm.

Still waiting.................

-- Posted by ceymore on Thu, Apr 1, 2010, at 3:48 PM

Can we get this dead horse to the glue factory already? Seems cruel to keep beating it.

'Kay, thanks.

-- Posted by koeller77 on Thu, Apr 1, 2010, at 8:05 AM

Just so we're all on the same page...as previously stated, Kathy has no intention of making any further comment on this blog whatsoever.

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Wed, Mar 31, 2010, at 8:40 PM

Oklahoma Reader,

And yet accusations were made about me, but yet Kathy still can't answer the one question that persists?

Sorry Smokin' Cheetah about the mix up with your sexual identity.

-- Posted by ceymore on Wed, Mar 31, 2010, at 8:19 AM

Ceymore if your screen name is a play on words..."say more" it is undoubtably the most appropriate screen name anyone on these blogs has chosen. I do not mean that as criticism, but rather just an observation. Thirty percent of the comments on this interminable blog topic have been yours.

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Tue, Mar 30, 2010, at 11:57 PM

ok - it's officially 100.

zeke

-- Posted by zeke on Tue, Mar 30, 2010, at 1:49 PM

Well, here's 99.

I've learned alot about plausible deniability.

Still don't know smokin chettah's name, or what she's smokin!

-- Posted by ceymore on Tue, Mar 30, 2010, at 11:48 AM

Maybe I'll add another one. But I wouldn't want it said that we got to 100 because the conversation was padded. So let me just add that I learned a great deal about freedom of expression from the above conversation.

-- Posted by taxedpayer on Mon, Mar 29, 2010, at 6:07 PM

It's a shame this blog only got 96 comments. I think I'll add one.

-- Posted by taxedpayer on Mon, Mar 29, 2010, at 6:05 PM

Wow is right Zeke. We now have more posts on this blog topic than Martin Luther had numbers within his thesis. What should we shoot for next?

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Thu, Mar 18, 2010, at 6:03 PM

wow

-- Posted by zeke on Wed, Mar 17, 2010, at 3:51 PM

kathy,

I challenge you to show just one instance of accussing you of not being a Christian, or being one.

You are the one that accuses me of things, show some proof.

-- Posted by ceymore on Wed, Mar 17, 2010, at 9:49 AM

Miss Marple - Nah, I can just stick the gum in the freezer to get it to let go of the shoe.

-- Posted by koeller77 on Wed, Mar 17, 2010, at 9:16 AM

I'm not kidding, friends and neighbors. It's like gum on your shoe.

-- Posted by Miss Marple on Wed, Mar 17, 2010, at 5:47 AM

As I have lived,and gotten older

something tapped me on my shoulder.

I'm not sure from whence it came,

nor whether to rejoice, or to blame.

Perceptions differ for each I say,

so who does know the proper way?

Does mine bring succor, or is it bane?

To announce it certain is only vain.

Perhaps even that I can not say.

Is silence not the better way?

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Wed, Mar 17, 2010, at 1:08 AM

Well HickoryDickoryDock;

Think the Blog can hit 100?

Say SMOKIN' CHEETAH, you made some excellent points, I shall reflect on them.

By the way, what was Your Name?

Cutting and pasting is to show, I'm not adding my own opinion, the reason that I included the date, time, etc is so people can go make and check for the context. I have been falsely accused of doing such.

An agenda, perhaps, or maybe just generally peeved off, she baited this blog, she's waiting for her cronnies to come from out of the shadows to show themselves. I have only asked if she agrees with those who describe the Bible as "Fiction" and being "more dangerous than the questioned books"

I've been the one accused of name calling, makeing allegations, etc...I have steadily asked one question............does she hold the Bible to the same or lower standards as the questioned books?

Before I flap my wings and create a hurricane in BFE, as I said earlier, there is alittle more to this than has been shared.....if we wanna bust it out then so be,,,or simply answer the question -

does she hold the Bible to the same or lower standards as the questioned books?

And lets let her give a definite answer as to yes or no.

I had no problem admitting to the sins you wanted to know about, yes I stand guilty of being an adulterer, thief, liar, coward and other things too.......

One thing you can bet, I haven't agreed with anyone stating that the Bible is fictional, and I haven't agreed with anyone that says it is more dangerous than books that glamourize pediphila and homosexuality.

Since you have such a hard time with cut and paste, go back and read the blogs. Yes, I'm sure poor Kathy, has been unfairly picked on. I haven't called her names or made false enuendos, I've cut and pasted and included the dates and times for reference...

All it takes is a simple answer to a simple question......

At the time of the hearing she wasn't writing a blog......it could be covered as saying satire, kinda like a kid saying " Oh, just kidding.." if just kidding then what's the answer, and why so hesitant to just answer the question?

Yes or no. When Eric gave me an answer I accepted it, I didn't like it, but he gave me a straight answer. Just give a straight answer.

This town is very tight knit, there are factors involved that are more, a crusade? Don't flatter me, I'm pretty sure that this blogging will cost me my job, if not this year, within a couple.

You think things are anonymous? Smell the coffee, you've got to register for your user name....think they don't know who I am? The little group they hang with will reach out and touch me sooner or later.

-- Posted by ceymore on Tue, Mar 16, 2010, at 10:38 PM

Well, Hickory, there you go again. Who cares? Why, I believe YOU do! Otherwise, why bother to comment?

-- Posted by Miss Marple on Tue, Mar 16, 2010, at 9:48 PM

Koeller77

You have a right to disagree with those opinions and beliefs, but you do not have a right to call me (or anyone else) a liar, anti-Christian, and anti-Bible simply because you do not agree with those beliefs and opinions, despite ample evidence and statements to the contrary.

-- Posted by koeller77 on Tue, Mar 16, 2010, at 8:56 AM

"the bible is a collection of historical facts." Hmmm...I always thought was a collection of parables. You know - stories God, Jesus, and others told.-- Posted by koeller77 on Mon, Mar 1, 2010, at 9:20 PM

Ceymore -

You've missed my point entirely. The Bible is just as much made up of stories (teaching or not) as any other book. Yes, there are historically accurate facts in it. There are just as many historically accurate facts in other fiction books. -- Posted by koeller77 on Tue, Mar 2, 2010, at 7:59 AM

WHEN OR WHERE HAVE I REFERRED TO YOU IN ANY WAY? YOUR WORDS SPEAK LOUDER THAN ACTIONS.

Now, I'm going to do the Christian thing and turn the other cheek while you continue to argue. Have a wonderful day.-- Posted by koeller77 on Tue, Mar 16, 2010, at 8:56 AM

IS THAT FACTUALLY SPEAKING OR FICTIONALLY?

-- Posted by ceymore on Tue, Mar 16, 2010, at 10:50 AM

Ceymore -

With all due respect, my words have been quite clear.

I have a right to my opinion and beliefs on these graphic novels, the Bible, and well, pretty much everything else. I don't have to explain them to you, just because you don't understand my statements. You have a right to disagree with those opinions and beliefs, but you do not have a right to call me (or anyone else) a liar, anti-Christian, and anti-Bible simply because you do not agree with those beliefs and opinions, despite ample evidence and statements to the contrary.

Now, I'm going to do the Christian thing and turn the other cheek while you continue to argue. Have a wonderful day.

-- Posted by koeller77 on Tue, Mar 16, 2010, at 8:56 AM

Scrooge,

ceymore - what IF she DOES class ALL FICTION as equal?.............................. -- Posted by NanaDot on Tue, Mar 2, 2010, at 12:02 PM

bah, humbug!...........

-- Posted by ceymore on Tue, Mar 16, 2010, at 6:42 AM

Koeller77,

I didn't make anything up......is it fact or fiction? or poor choice of words? I only used your words.

Why can't you just make a simple answer. Is it so hard for people to actually think about what they write? doesn't critial thought have any place in reason - or is all left to emotion?

Emotion changes with circumstance - reason is steady and sure. Come on Koeller, every chance you get you take a cheap shot, yet when a point is made you disappear. What gives?

When a person can seperate themselves from their morals, then of what worth are morals?

-- Posted by ceymore on Mon, Mar 15, 2010, at 9:58 PM

Oh good grief. I'm done, too. Apparantly none of us know our own opinions or beliefs.

-- Posted by koeller77 on Mon, Mar 15, 2010, at 7:46 PM

kathy, koeller77

Let's read English together shall we?

As before, ceymore, you persist in inventing comments for me, or misquoting me. If you can't "report" accurately, don't report at all.

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Mon, Mar 1, 2010, at 11:28 AM

October 2006; what follows here is the text of my remarks.....There is another book, which, based on its contents, poses far more danger to children than these two largely autobiographical works...... -- we know it as The Holy Bible.

It's one thing to disagree with an opinion, but in my book, quite another to assert, and then continue to assert in the face of proof otherwise, that I said something I did not say.

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Tue, Mar 2, 2010, at 10:51 AM

Seriously, ceymore, what part of this is unclear?

"Obviously, I'm being facetious. Getting the Bible banned is a job no one would undertake, at least no one in his or her right mind, and I'm not suggesting that here."-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Tue, Mar 2, 2010, at 9:43 PM

Yeah Kathy, your perfectly, obviously facetious.

.......but because you agree w/ what the Bible says its fine. remember you have to treat them both equally as works of fiction. because thats what they are....... -- Posted by MissouriBlooms on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, at 7:53 PM

MissouriBlooms: You hit the nail on the head. Thank you.-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Fri, Mar 12, 2010, at 7:25 AM

I DO NOT HAVE NEGATIVE VIEWS TOWARDS THE BIBLE AND/OR RELIGION IN GENERAL. IF THAT IS WHAT YOU UNDERSTAND FROM WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN, YOU ARE MISTAKEN.-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Sun, Mar 14, 2010, at 2:44 PM

What else would a person conclude from the above?

I now understand, you might say something without thinking, and agree with something without reading, it is evident that you waffle on decisions like Obama does on change.

Koeller, to quote: "the bible is a collection of historical facts." Hmmm...I always thought was a collection of parables. You know - stories God, Jesus, and others told.-- Posted by koeller77 on Mon, Mar 1, 2010, at 9:20 PM

The Bible is just as much made up of stories (teaching or not) as any other book. Yes, there are historically accurate facts in it. There are just as many historically accurate facts in OTHER FICTION books......And before you accuse me of being anti-Christian, let me assure you that I am a Christian, attend church regularly, and am even a member of my church council. -- Posted by koeller77 on Tue, Mar 2, 2010, at 7:59 AM

Gee, Koeller77 it sounds like you really stand firm on the faith. Just a collection of parables and has just as many historically accurate facts as OTHER FICTION books? is it a church or a club you belong to?

Koeller77, do you view the Bible as fact or fiction? was it maybe a poor analogy or poor choice of words?

KATHY The question form March 1st: So are you guilty of placing the Bible in the same standards as the "graphic novels" or not?

-- Posted by ceymore on Mon, Mar 1, 2010, at 12:06 PM

You certainly placed it as more dangerous....Why can't you just give an answer?

-- Posted by ceymore on Mon, Mar 15, 2010, at 7:23 PM

Ceymore:Here is a link to a description of some of DaVinci's work that has homosexual overtones. Might help you get the right ones banned, if you are so inclined. You will have to scroll down. http://www.aspectart.com/info/category/d...

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Mon, Mar 15, 2010, at 7:12 PM

Ceymore: One other difference; Flynt, known heterosexual, DaVinci, reputed homosexual. Take a closer look at DaVinci's work in the local library, you might want to add it to the works you would like to ban.

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Mon, Mar 15, 2010, at 7:00 PM

Ceymore: Leonardo and Larry? Strange bed fellows, but Larry coulda figured a way to get em there.

A difference that you may not have considered is that Larry Flynt was a crusader for personal freedom. I don't recall that DaVinci was that.

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Mon, Mar 15, 2010, at 6:48 PM

I'm just going to ignore you from this point on, ceymore. Your characterizations of me are so far beyond WRONG that it just isn't possible to address it. Don't bother asking me any questions, because I am not going to answer them.

As I said earlier, your continued comments are saying a good deal more about you and your ability to understand ordinary English than anything I can possibly say.

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Mon, Mar 15, 2010, at 5:18 PM

ceymore -

It seems to me that you made a statement regarding Kathy's alleged dislike of Christianity and the Bible and she has responded. Is that correct?

And then Kathy responded that she does not, in fact, dislike Christianity or the Bible. Is that correct?

And then you argued with her that she DOES in fact dislike Christianity and the Bible. Is that correct?

Seems to me that you're the one continuing the conversation after she has made numerous statements indicating that you were wrong about what her opinion is. Seems to me that SHE would be the one who knows what her opinion is, not you. Not really sure how that has devolved into you being the defender of faith, since no one attacked faith in the first place.

But hey, just my 2 cents.

-- Posted by koeller77 on Mon, Mar 15, 2010, at 3:32 PM

Smokin Chettah'

If I don't stand up for what I know to be good, true and right, even if it appears that the world is against me, then of what value do I hold my faith?

What about those who do read the blogs, and have questions? Those who don't write in because of the fear of ridicule, if I don't offer some defense, what of those who are searching and don't hear the other side.

I may be surrounded on all sides and out numbered, but it's not lost.

If I haven't been clear about something let me know, I'll clarify. I have language deficiencies, but I feel that my reasoning is sound.

-- Posted by ceymore on Mon, Mar 15, 2010, at 12:13 PM

Smokin Cheetah

I'll give it a try about answering your questions.

I understand that if not you, but others will come back with caustic remarks meant to be witty or just smart aleck.

Through out the course of this blog it has gone many directions, initially it started out with how the Library Board railroaded the issue through, and perhaps the slant in reporting it may have taken, among various other topics.

There were also other issues concerning the library at that approximate time that would contribute to the understanding of my objections, but as it has not been brought out, I'll let it rest.

"Is this topic one that you are taking a firm stand on *because* of your faith and a Christian obligation to take a stand for Christ and the Word of God? "

My faith in Jesus Christ and the Word of God is the primary motive, I'm not ashamed to be a Christian.

"Have you ever looked at a member of the opposite sex with lustful eyes?

Have you ever known in your heart of hearts that you *should* have done something, but didn't?

Have you ever realized when you got home that you still had that ink pen, pencil, paperclip from the office in your pocket...but never took it back to the office?

Have you ever said anything that you know is not true?"

I am guilty of All the mentioned as well as more, none of which I am proud of. With admiting guilt, repentance can follow and forgiveness.

This has not been about what I think kathy has been guilty of, but rather "In her blog, does she feel that the Bible and the books Questioned are on the same playing field.

You see, I work with people in Saline County without hope. People who think life is short, let's live it and die, days' blir into weeks , weeks into years, and when they look back into it, they've passed that tradition on to their kids. Illigite births, drug dependancy, prostitution, child abuse/neglect etc..

We as a society have drilled it into their heads that they are no more than animals,,,so why not behave like animals? I believe there is more,, hope, reward, the promise of better. A reward if chosen, where there is no pain, hurt, sickness, illness, a place where doors don't have locks, and amazement and the wonder of it all is eternal,.

That people are of worth, because we were first loved. Th founders of this country believed that we were endeawoed with certain inalienable rights - endeawoed by our creator.

how can the instruction book for Life be held in the same regards as "graphic novels?"

I believe that anyone is entitled to there opinion, I support nonbelivers to their right, but to take pot shots at those who have faith,, is not to be tolerated.

This was done when others wish to say that it is fictional, or that they are so enlightened as to have all the answers. This was a specific shot at the Christian faith, the Torah, or Koran was not taken a shot at, perhaps because we expect these groups to voice objection? Why should Christians sit silently?

The only question that has been asked is, do you believe the Bible is equal to the books in question? She brought it up......I just want an answer. I'm not perfect...I will defend her right to have an opinion, but I ahve the right to disagree.

-- Posted by ceymore on Mon, Mar 15, 2010, at 11:18 AM

Oklahoma Reader,

Oh horrors, probably.

Figured out the difference between DiVinci and Larry Flint yet?

-- Posted by ceymore on Mon, Mar 15, 2010, at 6:25 AM

Oh horrors! Will this blog topic run on until there are 666 posts?

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Mon, Mar 15, 2010, at 12:30 AM

Kathy,

I've only asked if you hold the Bible in the same regards or lower than the questioned books. Here are some of your following comments:

October 2006; what follows here is the text of my remarks.

"If we are going to decide what others can read, or not read, then we cannot begin with "Blankets" or "Fun Home," the books being challenged tonight.

There is another book, which, based on its contents, POSES far more danger to children than these two largely autobiographical works.......

It's been around for hundreds and hundreds of years -- we know it as The Holy Bible."

SORRY KATHY, ALOT OF PEOPLE DON'T VIEW THE BIBLE AS DANGEROUS. ENLIGHTENING MAYBE.....

Night Sky, let's be just real clear on one important point. It was NOT I who brought up this subject, it was ceymore and not for the first time. Cast all the blame you wish, but don't throw it on my shoulders.

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Tue, Mar 2, 2010, at 7:46 AM

A NEWS FLASH KATHY - YOU PICKED THE ARTICLES, THE TOPICS, IT IS YOUR BLOG ISN'T IT?

And again, this is not the first time he/she has made the charge. It's one thing to disagree with an opinion, but in my book, quite another to assert, and then continue to assert in the face of proof otherwise, that I said something I did not say.

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Tue, Mar 2, 2010, at 10:51 AM

WHAT OTHER TIMES? THE QUESTION ASKED IS DO YOU VIEW THE BIBLE IN THE SAME REGARDS AS THE QUESTIONED BOOKS?

because you agree w/ what the Bible says its fine. remember you have to treat them both equally as works of fiction. because thats what they are -- Posted by MissouriBlooms on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, at 7:53 PM

MissouriBlooms: You hit the nail on the head. Thank you.

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Fri, Mar 12, 2010, at 7:25 AM

SO KATHY, WHILE YOUR'E SO BUSY PATTING YOURSELF ON THE BACK, DO YOU HOLD THE BIBLE AS FICTION? COMMENTS DO SEEM JADED- OR DO YOU DISAGREE WITH MissouriBlossoms? ON THAT POINT?

I DO NOT HAVE NEGATIVE VIEWS TOWARDS THE BIBLE AND/OR RELIGION IN GENERAL. IF THAT IS WHAT YOU UNDERSTAND FROM WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN, YOU ARE MISTAKEN.

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Sun, Mar 14, 2010, at 2:44 PM

HOW ELSE WOULD YOU TAKE THE REMARKS, KATHY?

The truth of the matter is that it's none of your business what I do or do not believe about religion or about the Bible................Can I get an "Amen," brothers and sisters?

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Sun, Mar 14, 2010, at 4:46 PM

YOU SEEM RATHER FLIPANT ABOUT THAT LAST REMARK.

The simple fact Kathy, on your blog about I read Banned Books I sent a blog stating I understood your general dislike for religion......you continued it after that....you chose this topic...and it seems you have helped it along.

I believe that you've answered the question.

-- Posted by ceymore on Sun, Mar 14, 2010, at 8:28 PM

Now that a couple of hours have passed and I've had a chance to think this over, I have one more thing to say to ceymore.

The truth of the matter is that it's none of your business what I do or do not believe about religion or about the Bible.

And it's none of my business what you or anyone else believes in that regard, either. One of my most deeply-held beliefs is that religion, or lack thereof, is a personal issue.

Your ridiculous statements, ceymore, founded as they are on thin air, reflect more on you than they do on me.

Can I get an "Amen," brothers and sisters?

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Sun, Mar 14, 2010, at 4:46 PM

ceymore: You wrote: I've never asked for an apology, Simply put - I understand that you have negative views towards the Bible and religion in general. My understanding comes from the remarks you, yourself have written."

I'm not sure how to make this as clear as I would like to, so I am going to resort to all caps, even though I realize it's not generally viewed as proper on the internet.

I DO NOT HAVE NEGATIVE VIEWS TOWARDS THE BIBLE AND/OR RELIGION IN GENERAL. IF THAT IS WHAT YOU UNDERSTAND FROM WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN, YOU ARE MISTAKEN.

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Sun, Mar 14, 2010, at 2:44 PM

MissouriBlooms, you said,

"remember you have to treat them both equally as works of fiction. because thats what they are."

This is your own personal opinion, I assume? As we are all entitled to have.

You might find it interesting to note that the bible, in most libraries, is in the nonfiction section. Out of 50 libraries, so far, where I have checked their online catalog records, all have the bible in their nonfiction section. As do our own local libraries, Marshall Public Library and Murrell Memorial Library at Missouri Valley College.

I am not saying I agree or disagree with that. Just making an observation toward your above statement.

-- Posted by Night Sky on Sun, Mar 14, 2010, at 2:06 PM

Kathy, this refers to your comment to me on Tue, Mar 2, 2010.

I did read this entire story and all the comments before I posted my own. Your suggestion that I should read another OBTW article proves my point. I had never read your column so how was I, and others who did not read the I Read Banned Books entry, to know of this previous discussion.

This one caught my eye and attention because of the controversial title. Surely you don't deny it's controversial? I realize that often a writing career requires titles and subjects that will catch the reader's eye and create more discussion and comments but, really, didn't you realize this one was going a little overboard for this mostly conservative little community?

-- Posted by Night Sky on Sun, Mar 14, 2010, at 1:49 PM

Okahoma Reader -

"Ceymore one persons definition of art is not the same as anothers." using the old ploy of what's true for you might not be true for me?

Really, you can't tell the difference between art that evokes a deeper range of emotions, than porn that is used only as a mastabatory process of the mind?

It seems that the original question still stands -Kathy, do you place the Bible at a lower standing than the books mentioned? It would seem that those who are your supporters view the Bible as fictional - does that represent your views?

I've never asked for an apology, Simply put - I understand that you have negative views towards the Bible and religion in general. My understanding comes from the remarks you, yourself have written.

Am I wrong?

-- Posted by ceymore on Sun, Mar 14, 2010, at 9:37 AM

Ceymore one persons definition of art is not the same as anothers. So should one's be banned, but not another's?

Give it a rest. Each time you comment you just dig a deeper hole for yourself.

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Sun, Mar 14, 2010, at 1:53 AM

MissouriBlossoms and Kathy Fairchild:

To Quote:

"If we are going to decide what others can read, or not read, then we cannot begin with "Blankets" or "Fun Home," the books being challenged tonight. There is another book, which, based on its contents, poses far more danger to children than these two largely autobiographical works...........................................

It's been around for hundreds and hundreds of years -- we know it as The Holy Bible." Kathy Fairchild

" what the Bible says its fine. remember you have to treat them both equally as works of fiction. because thats what they are." MissouriBlossoms

It may come as a shock to you Ms. Blossoms, but many regard the Bible as nonfiction.

I would hope that you could discern the differences between Mercedes Farina, Khalid Al Tahnazi, Tomas O'Maoldomhnaigh, Donatello, or Giotto in their displays of the human body and those of Playboy, Hustler or Penthouse.

But perhaps you can't............maybe the last blog where I referred to "being surrounded by phillistines" didn't get entered into the computer right - or it got deleted. Perhaps it was a more caustic comment than being referred to as......."Ceymore that your problem is that your a close minded conservative," I may,,, it can be fixed....but you my dears, well you can't fix stupid.

-- Posted by ceymore on Sat, Mar 13, 2010, at 7:57 PM

MissouriBlossoms:

" its seems to me Ceymore that your problem is that your a close minded conservative thats forgotten its no longer 1950. Catch up w/ the times and stop trying to force your beleifs on others."

Gee MissouriBlossoms, Looks like the pot calling the kettle black!

-- Posted by ceymore on Sat, Mar 13, 2010, at 10:00 AM

MissouriBlooms: You hit the nail on the head. Thank you.

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Fri, Mar 12, 2010, at 7:25 AM

the way I understand it Ceymore, mrs. Fairchild wasn't defaming or condemning the bible nor was she calling it pornography. I was at the meeting, and at the time it seemd to me she was simply using it as a catalyst to help people understand that its the wrong to ban these books simply because you don't like whats written in them. the bible as stated above covers many risque subjects as do the "graphic novels" but because you agree w/ what the Bible says its fine. remember you have to treat them both equally as works of fiction. because thats what they are. you cannot put to death one book and let loose the other just because you've read it your whole life. Just as you cant sentence one person to jail for robbery but let another one go because "you know he's a good guy". When making these judgments you have to remember to try and look at things from both sides w/o involving your own personal opinion. its seems to me Ceymore that your problem is that your a close minded conservative thats forgotten its no longer 1950. Catch up w/ the times and stop trying to force your beleifs on others. Just like you don't agree w/ the content of these books not everyone agrees w/ the content of the Bible. The arguements not about religion or the fact/or fiction of the bible, its about making a fair and just decission. In short, the bible when mentioned along w/ the "graphic novels" at the meeting was merely being used as an example of material that has to be taken within context as well as within the readers personal psyche.

-- Posted by MissouriBlooms on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, at 7:53 PM

Smokin' cheetah

The first. No bait just understanding.

-- Posted by ceymore on Thu, Mar 4, 2010, at 11:33 PM

Cheetah, good to see you again. I think your last interpretation is the correct one. Between you and Oklahoma Reader, you have exactly captured the situation.

I related the story about "The Catcher in the Rye" because, although it was a little scary when I was 14, it's funny to me today and Salinger's recent death provided an opportunity to tell it again. It had nothing to do with religion then or now, except incidentally.

I did make one error. I should have remembered the exhortation "Never explain - your enemies won't heed it and your friends don't need it."

On the other hand, it's good to see an old friend, friend. KF :)

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Thu, Mar 4, 2010, at 8:53 PM

Smokin' Cheetah,

I bare no ill will to Kathy, she baited this last week with her I READ BANNED BOOKS, she described,in my opinion, yet another unfortunate experience she had with Christianity, not the belief, but a person representing it.

I posted :

Kathy,

Thank you for your story.

I know understand your general dislike for Christianity, and the reason you spoke on behalf of several "graphic" novels.

-- Posted by ceymore on Tue, Feb 23, 2010, at 12:08 PM

This was her response.

ceymore, you know nothing of the sort. This is not the first time you have insulted me by making these kinds of accusations and I'd appreciate it if you would stop.

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, at 5:45 AM

The blog was not accusatory, defaming or such, it was based on such remarks as the following:

Kathy spoke on Oct of 2006, a better quoting of her words are found above.

"There is another book, which, based on its contents, poses far more danger to children than these two largely autobiographical works............... The Holy Bible."

My question was to her, and is, it would appear from her remarks that she may hold the Bible to a lower standard than the "graphic novels" mentioned.

She picks the topics, she sets the tone, as she buys the ink by the barrel, I don't believe it is her place to advocate from the local newspaper a particular religious belief, or a particular disbelief or disdain for any religion.

There is more that could be said, but this seems to be the main problem that Kathy views to have with me.

I understand with the explanation from Eric, that the newspaper is a private business, and as thus they have the right to publish as they see fit. I have found Eric to be extremely fair, able to conduct a conversation objectively and well rounded. Eric gives straight answers to straight questions, it may not be what you want to hear, but he's honest. I don't believe that Eric would use his paper to promote a particular religion, or degrade it.

In short, I don't believe that other staff have dealt fairlyin regards to remarks directed to or at myself. I won't be railroaded as some are accustomed to doing.

My initial question was, is, could be, etc.......Do you hold the Bible in the same regards as you do the two books in question?

Smokin' Cheetah thank you for your advice, it has not fallen on deaf ears......You have reminded me of a verse, in I believe Luke - King James - "It is hard to kick against the pricks."

Were there not anyone else that felt the comparison was unfair, unjust or just poorly guided?

-- Posted by ceymore on Wed, Mar 3, 2010, at 10:22 PM

Eric,

Thank you for a straight answer.

-- Posted by ceymore on Wed, Mar 3, 2010, at 11:21 AM

That's a good question, ceymore.

There is a difference that matters here: The library is supported by tax dollars. It seeks to provide something for everyone, and every constituency of readers is a minority in some respect, but minorities that deserve service (for example: not everyone likes romance novels, but those who abhor them can't have them removed, denying romance novel fans of their reading material).

The newspaper is a private business, not a government body. We have more freedom to exercise judgment and what we might call "retroactive selection." We don't screen comments before they are posted, but we can and do remove anything we find objectionable -- with input from the community (our customers) to help us make those decisions.

Both organizations support free speech, but each has somewhat different obligations in that regard.

-- Posted by Eric Crump on Wed, Mar 3, 2010, at 9:07 AM

A majority of people who voiced their opinions about the books in question also found Pedaphila, pictures of men shoving hands down childrens pants and lesbians with their head between anothers legs somewhat rude, crude and offensive especially when aimed at children.

Where on the slippery slope do we stop? on the blogs, schools or just at the library?

Oh, and point of fact, the Bible has been banned in various places,,,,but as of yet, not at the Marshall Public Library.

-- Posted by ceymore on Wed, Mar 3, 2010, at 8:57 AM

Yeah Kathy, your perfectly, obviously facetious.

If censorship is a taboo, why was Hickory's blog deleted? was it rude, crude and offensive?

As the Lne Crusader for the 1st ammendment is that hyprocritcal, or do you see a need to enter the slippery slope of censorship once in a while?

Two things, ceymore, and then I wash my hands of you.Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Mon, Mar 1, 2010, at 9:56 AM

I recall that being said earlier in history----to a far greater diety than I can ever aspire to be.

-- Posted by ceymore on Wed, Mar 3, 2010, at 5:33 AM
Eric Crump
"was it rude, crude and offensive? "

Yes.

Seriously, ceymore, what part of this is unclear?

"Obviously, I'm being facetious. Getting the Bible banned is a job no one would undertake, at least no one in his or her right mind, and I'm not suggesting that here."

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Tue, Mar 2, 2010, at 9:43 PM

Babygotback,

Here is the blog from "I READ BANNED BOOKS", this is what prompted this weeks subject about "Ban the Bible!"

Kathy,

Thank you for your story.

I know understand your general dislike for Christianity, and the reason you spoke on behalf of several "graphic" novels.

-- Posted by ceymore on Tue, Feb 23, 2010, at 12:08 PM

Well I don't get to buy ink by the barrel, but I can type on the internet. My blog was not an attack, or accusatory, just a statement of what seems to be a fact. Her own words, as evidenced from the article above. It's not an opinion, it is proven.

I still hold that she is a good reporter working for a good paper.

A paper who wouldn't have to allow my comments, but they ARE LIVING THEIR WORD - they aren't censoring. Well unless it is lude, crude or generally offensive - maybe like a large crowd felt about the two books?

-- Posted by ceymore on Tue, Mar 2, 2010, at 6:03 PM

ceymore, Your point has been made. Its obvious you disagree with what Kathy said A LONG TIME AGO. We get it - now drop it already

-- Posted by babygotback on Tue, Mar 2, 2010, at 3:52 PM

KATHY are these your words?

"If we are going to decide what others can read, or not read, then we cannot begin with "Blankets" or "Fun Home," the books being challenged tonight.

THERE IS ANOTHER BOOK,WHICH,BASED ON TIS CONTENTS, POSES FAR MORE DANGER TO CHILDREN THAN THE TWO LARGELY AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL WORKS.

The book I am speaking of discusses the range of human sexual behavior and misbehavior, including adultery, nudity, multiple marriage, and prostitution. Contained within its covers are graphic descriptions of the attempted murder of a child by his own father, murder among brothers, the unfair trial and brutal murder of a peace-loving religious leader, violent warfare, even witchcraft.

This book is no doubt found in this and every library in this country, and is the foundation of religious cults the world over, some of which have been considered dangerous and subversive. It is sold in every bookstore. It is easily available online for free. It consistently reaches the bestseller lists, outselling every author from Grisham to Clancy, and has been translated into untold numbers of languages. It's been around for hundreds and hundreds of years -- we know it as THE HOLY BIBLE. " (emphasis added with capitalization)

From your quote, it seems you do not hold it to the same standard as the other two books, but you view it as being more threatening, and perverse.

Nightsky, please click on the link and see if I have taken any part of Kathy's remark out of text. Correct me if I have been over zealous about this subject.

I feel I have demonstrated the process of being railroaded by the library board, being portrayed as a villian in regards to the question asked Kathy, and she is the one who baited it - I READ BANNED BOOKS- BAN THE BIBLE - she was looking for feed back she's got it.

She's a good little columnist, working for a good little paper, I have no problem with her as might be suggested, but I do disagree with her on this.

People you can disagree with someone without enemity, that's called communication. There isn't a victim here, so stop trying to be the poor martyr. I only pointed out how the powers to be can railroad a subject that the public disagreed with.

-- Posted by ceymore on Tue, Mar 2, 2010, at 12:05 PM

Again Kathy,

do you place the Bible in the same standing as the two books you defended?

-- Posted by ceymore on Tue, Mar 2, 2010, at 11:51 AM

Night Sky: If you cannot be bothered to read the entire story and the remarks, then read this: www.marshallnews.com/blogs/kathyfairchil...

It's always helpful, in my experience, to see the ENTIRE picture before making comments. I hope you will agree after you see both the previous column AND ceymore's remarks, that the commotion was begun and is begin continued by ceymore. And again, this is not the first time he/she has made the charge. It's one thing to disagree with an opinion, but in my book, quite another to assert, and then continue to assert in the face of proof otherwise, that I said something I did not say.

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Tue, Mar 2, 2010, at 10:51 AM

It's your blog. Was your choice to write about it. Ceymore's name isn't mentioned. How were we the readers supposed to know you're having issues with ceymore? Sometimes you have to turn the other cheek in this eye for an eye online world. It's not fair to play games with your friend's job.

-- Posted by Night Sky on Tue, Mar 2, 2010, at 9:35 AM

Night Sky - you're wrong, sorry. I didn't start the fire on this. Perhaps you did not notice the remarks at the top of the entry stating very clearly what this is all about. You may continue to flog that dead horse if you wish, but I most emphatically did NOT start the party here.

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Tue, Mar 2, 2010, at 9:18 AM

Koeller77,

I'm not aware I've ever accused you of being anything.

Are you able to seperate your morals from aspects of your personal life?

If so, does this create conflict with today's world? what does it say about the values you place on your morals?

If not, does this create conflict with today's world? what does it say about the values you place on your morals?

I believe that I live in a town with high ethics.

What is the difference between an ethical person and a moral person?

-- Posted by ceymore on Tue, Mar 2, 2010, at 8:30 AM

Ceymore -

You've missed my point entirely. The Bible is just as much made up of stories (teaching or not) as any other book. Yes, there are historically accurate facts in it. There are just as many historically accurate facts in other fiction books. We have to apply the same rules to ALL books, regardless of our belief system.

And before you accuse me of being anti-Christian, let me assure you that I am a Christian, attend church regularly, and am even a member of my church council. But regardless of my personal beliefs, I think it's MY job to police what my children are reading - not the library's job. Their job is to provide as many books as possible, given their budget and try to best assess their community's needs in the makeup of those books. Yes, they can't order every single book. No - that's not censorship, because they're not trying to prevent you from reading it, as people were trying to do with these two graphic novels.

-- Posted by koeller77 on Tue, Mar 2, 2010, at 7:59 AM

But it's your blog. You wrote the controversial title and you wrote the piece. And you gave the link to the past articles. Not ceymore. If ceymore wrote something elsewhere on this website, I didn't see that, and there is the possibility of other readers who have not seen other ceymore postings on this subject. So for those of us who haven't seen those, this is the first thing we have read or seen on the subject.

I thought Amy Crump was your friend. Just saying I wouldn't think you'd want to bring all of that up again. It wasn't a day in the park for the library board, staff or her during those months.

-- Posted by Night Sky on Tue, Mar 2, 2010, at 7:57 AM

Night Sky, let's be just real clear on one important point. It was NOT I who brought up this subject, it was ceymore and not for the first time. Cast all the blame you wish, but don't throw it on my shoulders.

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Tue, Mar 2, 2010, at 7:46 AM

Nana Dot,

At the time both books were in the teen section of the library, not the adult. So, absolutely, children had access to them.

Taxed Payer,

There was an employee terminated in October 2006.

Kathy Fairchild,

I am disappointed that you are stirring all this up again. By all means, let's pit the church goers against those sinners at the library once again. Let's do just that. Let's make the headlines on yahoo again. Let's give everyone something else to laugh at about Marshall. Nothing good can come out of bringing all this up again.

Criminy, let it rest.

-- Posted by Night Sky on Mon, Mar 1, 2010, at 11:52 PM

nanodot

Glad you could interpret what the "whole" county wanted.

But those who attended voiced a majority opinion, sorry, thought things where a democracy. Oh, by the way the library is the Marshall Library, not the Saline COUNTY Library.

Maybe the next election you can decide what the "whole country wants" and just forget the due process? Procedures are in place to be fair and just, what happened to your sense of fair and just?

Oh, and nice cop out - open to interpretation, that makes everyones opinion equal. so no one is wrong, all is right, maybe we should have a cup of tea and give England a call.

Hadn't seen the first admendment interpreted that way before maybe we should just goose step to the court house?

So what are the checks and balances to the censorship of the library staff?

-- Posted by ceymore on Mon, Mar 1, 2010, at 11:15 PM

Taxedpayer,

Those library books were also noted on the internet as being controversal. Also the main deal is this, don't librarians practice censorship? what they purchase or discard? If they represent the public, or are placed by those who are supposed to represent the public, why wasn't public sentiment regarded? Again, that night of the public forum, it was overwhelmingly clear what the public wanted.

Why weren't they represented?

Again, plaese let me stress, the library circumvented it's due process. It didn't reflect the wishes of the people. The regulations allowed for books to be challenged, but they didn't follow their own rules, put off a decision, and then made new rules, which favored their view point.

At the time of the constitution, wasn't the main thrust of the rebellion to overthrow a cruel and oppressive gov't?

Pornography really didn't figure into it, books such as Common Sense, and Poor Richards Almanac, the ability to criticise the King without fear of retribution were probally on the forefront of thought.

I agree times and laws change, but what was the original intent? Is it flawed, or have we tried to fit too many square pegs into a round hole?

-- Posted by ceymore on Mon, Mar 1, 2010, at 10:42 PM

Ceymore, I see your point about the library board's decision. I mean, I think when the dust settled they made the right decision. But it was a messy process and left them open to suspicion. If I was on the other side of the issue, I might feel the same way you do. Hopefully, the policy they have now is a good one and will make the process work better if there's ever another challenge.

-- Posted by taxedpayer on Mon, Mar 1, 2010, at 10:32 PM

Koeller77

I realize that you share no particular fondness for me, but parables are found mostly in the New Testament, though used in the Old Testament. The point of the parables were to illustrate a lesson.

There are studies concerning geographical sites that verify the existance of many of the ancient civilizations mentioned in the old testament.

There is some report or belief in a fragment (s) of what is believed to be Noah's ark in Turkey. I have not made decision on this as no proof has been conclusive.

I admit to being puzzled by a common layer of sediment found the world over, much like a layer of dirt left in a tub, another oddity is that the oldest fossils of the Grand Canyon are found at the bottom, instead of the top, as common sense would dictate.

I do believe that every person has the right to their opinions, and I support that right to agree with Biblical accounts or to dispute those accounts, but as with our friends that are Hindu, Muslim, or Biddist civility should be extended.

As for those who are called by the name of Christian, I believe in Unity in the essentials, Liberty in the non-essentials, and Charity in all things, to loosely paraphrase Martin Luther.

koeller77, I wish you well in your journey.

-- Posted by ceymore on Mon, Mar 1, 2010, at 10:29 PM

Is the Bible in the same category as the challenged books? Yes. The category of works that are protected by the First Amendment.

It's a big category.

I think it works like this: The founding fathers probably didn't *like* pornography, but the First Amendment doesn't say free speech for honorable ideas and no free speech for slimey immoral ideas. And that's because what's good speech and what's bad speech is subjective. Changes with time, even. Laws change over time, too, but founding principles need to be stable, and they need to apply fairly to everyone.

That's a key point. The library is there for everyone, including right thinking people who abhor lesbian relationships and right thinking people who embrace lesbian relationships. It's not the library's job to decide what anyone (or their kids) read. It's the library's job to make available the best stuff it can. The two challenged books were well-regarded by literary reviewers.

-- Posted by taxedpayer on Mon, Mar 1, 2010, at 10:16 PM

"the bible is a collection of historical facts." Hmmm...I always thought was a collection of parables. You know - stories God, Jesus, and others told.

-- Posted by koeller77 on Mon, Mar 1, 2010, at 9:20 PM

Gee, guess I got it all wrong, you mean the books were for adults? Does the local library compete with the Lions Den?

Topics such as pediphilia? lesbianism, in "graphic novels", and the whole while everyone that attended the city meetings had a misperception that these books were meant for minors.

You had time to check on the farm, how about ease to Gilpins?

As for the process the library board took, it's simple to see - they didn't invite comments from the audience, and they gathered the policies of other libraries that fit with the ideology of the libarian here.

I'm not knocking the library or it's staff. I am pointing out what many view as the underhanded way in which they handled the situation. they had a policy that handled challenged books.

Libarians regularly order and discard books based on their and the publics desires. So what was the stink? The public, as a large group voiced their opinion that night, but it wasn't listened to.

Our library is innovative and does serve the community well. The library does employ staff that offer a wide selection of books and activities for those of this community. I believe that the library has the right person employed as the head librarian.

I believe that it is evident that when the public disagrees with Connie Latimer or the library, that the public will be ran over, and policies changed to meet the Special interests.

-- Posted by ceymore on Mon, Mar 1, 2010, at 6:12 PM

nanodot,

Where there books being kept behind the shelves, books that children shouldn't see, but still meant for them?

Do you see any difference between pictures in National Geographic, and those that show a man with his hands down the front of a boys pants, or two lesibians in bed together, romantically? really, you don't see a difference?

The Bible is a document of historical facts, never does it glamorize perverson.

You suggest that parents are more responsible for their childrens reading than library staff, I guess only those adults without children voiced their concerns? It was composed of parents. duh?

Don't library staff decide on what books to buy? which books to discard? Is that a form of censorship?

I see that in all of Marshall I'm the only one with this opinion, how many of you would want to give the books to your neighbor kid, or grand kid?

I bet a cop would want to know why your'e giving them to a kid, wanna explain that? or if SOMEONE gave those books to your kid, what do you think?

-- Posted by ceymore on Mon, Mar 1, 2010, at 3:47 PM

So at the time of the bridges being looked over, did she or did she not work at Gilpins?

Is her house at the entrance of the park or not?

Mighty convenient. Wonder what miracles can be worked now, with her new job?

What of the other questions? what about the kangaroo proceedings of the libarary evaluations?

what of catagorizing the Bible with that of graphic novels?

Do you really feel that veterans, and the founding fathers really meant for pornography to be protected, or was it the right to criticize the gov't?

I'm done, take your final parting shots, but the truth is, you are nit picking, and your'e not answering the questions.

But then this blog isn't meant to answer questions, it just seems to be a nice place to reaffirm Kathy's view points, and everyone has to defend theirs.

As long as it's ultra liberal, it's cool.......but common sense ........well, isn't so common.

-- Posted by ceymore on Mon, Mar 1, 2010, at 3:35 PM
Eric Crump
I don't know where Connie Latimer worked when the bridges were condemned and the rebuilding project began. Her house is near the bridges, yes. I'm not trying to argue with your point, which you're entitled to have, but it's misleading to suggest that the Latimers got the bridge built because it provides access to a farm. They don't own one, according to Mrs. Latimer. Just trying to keep things straight here.

You've described the book review process fairly accurately, except that, as NanaDot mentions, the books were not classified as children's books. Two books were challenged, the board discovered it didn't have an adequate policy for handling that situation, put the challenge on hold while a policy was developed using other libraries' policies as models, then the challenge was considered and the books returned to the shelves.

This comment was from me, not Kathy: "One clarifications: Connie Latimer has noted that she and her husband do not own a farm. The land they rent is not accessed via the Eastwood bridges."

Gilpin's is an auto salvage/parts business. Where'd "farm" come from?

-- Posted by Eric Crump on Mon, Mar 1, 2010, at 12:49 PM

I stand corrected on the point that you didn't feel the sentence was too harsh. so what of the other?

I can admit a mistake, and you?

-- Posted by ceymore on Mon, Mar 1, 2010, at 12:13 PM

Kathy, your'e wrong,

How do I get into the past archives of blogs, or is that deleted?

No comments about the kangaroo proceedings about the evaluation of the books? Don't librarians practice censorship when they throw books away? or decide which ones to buy or not buy?

so are you guilty of placing the Bible in the same standards as the "graphic novels" or not?

Deny that the library hearings were a sham, deny that elementary teachers were against the books, deny that the bridges are awfully convenient for the former mayor to cross, next to her new house, and that Marshall residents don't really benefit from them.

come on Kathy, deny that you didn't benefit from the library situation, and that the library board is a loaded dice, deny that you don't take cheap shots at Christianity,

I'm sorry life hasn't been fair for you, but objectivity shouldn't rest on emotions.

Jeez,,,,,,how about just being real?

-- Posted by ceymore on Mon, Mar 1, 2010, at 12:06 PM

As before, ceymore, you persist in inventing comments for me, or misquoting me. If you can't "report" accurately, don't report at all.

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Mon, Mar 1, 2010, at 11:28 AM

Okay here goes.

The bridges to the "farm" is a reference to her job at Gilpins. Did that picture get painted clear enough?

Kathy, your problem is that the pictures that were photocopied, cannot be controlled into whose hands they went.

Gee, wasn't that the original problem with placing the books into the "CHILDRENS SECTION"? At least the parents had the foreknowledge to decide where they would go.

Again Cathy, You ARE ONLY Guilty of placing the Bible in the same category as the Pornographic novels.

Kathy, in the lbogs you did mention that potentially the reporter could face what you flet where disportionately stiff sentencing.

-- Posted by ceymore on Mon, Mar 1, 2010, at 11:02 AM

Two things, ceymore, and then I wash my hands of you.

First, you assert here,regarding the sentencing of a KMMO reporter, "your comments were that the sentencing was too harsh." I made no such comments then or ever.

Second, one of the unfortunate consequences of making copies of pages in a book is that YOU cannot control where they go once they leave your hands. And that is exactly what happened here in Marshall - those copies went everywhere, very often into the hands you least wanted them to reach. For that, you and supporters of censorship have only yourselves to blame.

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Mon, Mar 1, 2010, at 9:56 AM

Ceymore: With respect, I think you got the story wrong about employees terminated from the library. I suspect you heard one side but not the other. Not blaming you, it's just I heard there was more to the story.

-- Posted by taxedpayer on Mon, Mar 1, 2010, at 7:23 AM

Oh yes, one other thing Ceymore. What were those library people up to showing pictures of an adult male with his hands on a little boy where you said they were (I can't even repeat what you said)? I find that disgusting too. Like you, and probably ninety percent of the rest of human kind we have to wonder about the evil darkness of the minds of anyone in any circumstance that would display those kinds of pedophiliac photos to their fellow citizens. Were they criminally charged by anyone for this revolting public display that they thrust upon their unaware neighbors?

Boy, some folks are so sick it is scary. Wouldn't you agree?

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Mon, Mar 1, 2010, at 12:29 AM

So Ceymore you, and others of the same opinion were forced to read these books? I don't blame you for complaining. It is almost the same as when me, and others of the same opinion are not allowed to read books we choose to. I always complain.

I suppose that we should band together to assure that other people don't tell us what we can, or can't do. We could start by reminding folks that we have laws protecting our freedom.

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Sun, Feb 28, 2010, at 11:57 PM
KATHY FAIRCHILD's response:
One clarifications: Connie Latimer has noted that she and her husband do not own a farm. The land they rent is not accessed via the Eastwood bridges.

The books in general were questioned as to the content for the children in which it was intended.

A "graphic novel" is intended to display pictures and words, not "graphic" in the sense of the nature of the book.

Those who displayed the objectionable passages in the books did photocopy those pictures. The pictures that showed an adult male with his hands down a little boys pants, two lesbians in bed together, and a caption with a lesbian with her head between the legs of another lesbian. The people didn't however display those pictures to children - But to ADULTS of those children who are entrusted with their nuturing and upbringing.

The public did voice their objection, infact, at the public meeting were there were no less than 30 who voiced their objection, and only 4 or 5 who approved of the subject material.

The media of Marshall did provide, in my opinion, a biased view point. For the 30 who voiced objection the weakest arguments were aired with the 4 or 5 who favored it, point being only a couple of the against where portrayed with the those who where for it, giving the public the sense that the town was split equally. It wasn't, it is understandable why the radio conducted itself as it did, seeing how the "ace" reporter was later convicted of soliciting a what he believed to be a 14 yr old girl, and your comments were that the sentencing was too harsh.

The Bible gives historical facts of what some of the chosen people did, but unlike the novel it didn't promote the deviate behavior depicted in your "graphic novels".

Perversion of the Bible and its contents are the basis for cults, not the Devine Author of the book.

As for the freedom of speech and the press which you so champion, my ancestors, friends, family and self have never served this country with the express idea of freedom of pornography, or books that merely function for the masturbatory process of the mind. those ancestors, Ms. Fairchild died for liberty and the ability to criticize a gov't that turns tyrannical.

We as a group thought the established processes in this case would allow due process, but when the books where challenged due process was circumvented. They conviened a series of "special meetings" to determine new policies in regards to the books. This process lasted in excess of 5 months! in which case when public outcry had died down they allowed the books.

They didn't even rule according to the policies they had in place, at the time the books where in question.

Apporintment to the library committee is done by the Mayor, as of late we have seen the core of her character. A $55,000 raise and a new job, two new bridges to the "farm" (at great expense to Marshall residents, who really don't benefit anyone unless they are from Arrowrock, or Slater, or the mayor).

You have a nice little job, where you control all the content of what is allowed or what you choose to write.

You are NOT guilty of trying to ban the Bible, merely regulating its worth and significance to that of pornography. Pornography aimed at Elementary children.

As a refresher, Marshall Elementary teachers voiced objection to the books, but there are those who tout "we read banned books!" Chiefly those of the public library, and when a librarian questions the validity of such books, they are given the pink slip.

YOU ARE NOT GUILTY OF TRYING TO BAN THE BIBLE, merely the poor taste of thinking pornography is equal with the Bible, as to the condition of your view points or soul, I am not the judge.

I cannot call an apple an orange, but I can tell the condition of its fruit.

-- Posted by ceymore on Sun, Feb 28, 2010, at 10:58 PM

What was particularly ridiculous about the flap surrounding these two books is that the people opposed to them had made copies of the most objectionable pages and circulated them all over town. In addition, they put those same pages in a PowerPoint presentation that was used during the meeting in question.

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Sun, Feb 28, 2010, at 8:22 PM

I was just recalling the controversy a day or two ago, wondering about the outcome.

I thought then the discussion was absurd, and I still believe so.

You might know that I like using analogies, and here's one my sister provided a few years ago. She came to my house to visit, and I was wearing a VERY wrinkled shirt-clean but unironed. She remarked about my appearance and I reminded her that I wasn't forcing her to look at me.

-- Posted by Slater on Sun, Feb 28, 2010, at 4:51 PM

Kathy, I believe this part from your article says it all:

"As Americans, we are committed to free speech and a free press, and that includes the ability, some might go so far as to say the DUTY, to allow the presentation of ideas and thoughts of whatever nature to be presented for all to investigate, evaluate, and accept or discard according to their own principles."

We have fought wars to protect this right of free speech and many fail to realize this goes hand-in-hand with freedom of religion. Many have died so we could have those freedoms. Let us not forget what many died for.

-- Posted by ghostwriter1978 on Sun, Feb 28, 2010, at 11:34 AM

Appreciate your comments Kathy. I read both graphic novels at the time of the controversy, both had their place in our library literature. Those that want to ban books are those same people that would like to see our government a Theocracy.

-- Posted by izaak on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, at 8:40 PM

OK Reader...yeah, lucid's the key... :)

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, at 4:51 PM

I can not imagine how any lucid person....oh well.

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, at 4:13 PM

Hip Hip Hooray!

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, at 4:11 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Kathy Fairchild received a Bachelor of Arts degree in business administration in 1986 from Marycrest College, Davenport, Iowa. She is also a 2003 graduate of the paralegal program at New York University. She moved to Marshall in 2006, following a career of more than 30 years with the world's largest farm equipment manufacturer. She is an Air Force brat and grandmother of four.
Hot topics
Lost Weekend
(1 ~ 12:41 PM, Mar 25)

Please help me, I'm fallin'
(3 ~ 6:07 AM, Sep 9)

Jukebox Democracy
(8 ~ 9:43 PM, Aug 19)

We're this close
(0 ~ 10:55 AM, Jun 9)

Part of the function of memory is to forget*
(5 ~ 9:31 PM, May 30)