Ban the Bible!

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

ceymore,

Do you hold the English language to the same standards as, say, ebonics, Chinese, or Arabic?

So which is it, ceymore?

"say more" or "see more".

It's a simple question. Why haven't you answered it yet?

Ceymore I have one question that persists. Say more?

I understand the ramifications, Eric, but you have to admit....that link was appropriate:)

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.

Ceymore is it "say more"?

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?

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.................

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.

Apology accepted, ceymore. But I believe what you intended to refer to was my "gender"--not my sexual identity. Two entirely different things there...

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.

ok - it's officially 100.

zeke

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

OK ceymore. That was a great deal more than a simple "yes" or "no". I'll run with what you gave me but remember, simple answers would have garnered simpler responses.

So who, exactly, do you think you're going to influence for Christ by doing so anonymously?

As it is now, you are not in the position of Christian crusader; you are an anonymous attacker. Your questions have been answered. You haven't received the answers YOU want, so this dialogue continues.

Do you really think Christ needs anonymous soldiers? OK. You're afraid of ridicule. To some extent, we all are. That's why nearly every person who posts here does so using a pseudonym. But fear of ridicule is SELFISH PRIDE. It's an excuse. As long as you are holding onto that fear of ridicule, then you are not denying SELF.

Matthew 16:24

Mark 8:34-38

Luke 9:23-26

Your anonymity is merely a guise so that you can continue to attack Kathy Fairchild after she has answered your questions repeatedly. You keep trying to make this look like a crusade. It's not a crusade. It's an agenda.

Now I'M going to be clear on something. I have defended the word of God in these blogs on more than a dozen occassions--at least. I'm ashamed of that in a way, because the Word of God needs no defense. It needs no explanation to those It matters to. However, it has NEVER been necessary for me to make my stand by cutting and pasting everything someone else says and then try to take one sentence completely out of context of the dialogue to make some kind of point. Ironically, that's where the majority of people completely rape the Word of God; they look at one sentence instead of the entire context. That's exactly what you keep doing to Kathy.

Do I agree with Kathy's comparison? That's a mixed bag. In the depth of my faith...NO. I don't. I hold the Bible to a higher standard than that. But that is because of my personal choice. Do I agree with her in the principle of the point she was making? Yes I do. I had a bible given to me when I was a child. This bible had illustrations. I remember well those illustrations scaring the crap out of me. Like it or not, this whole conversation stems from events that took place at the Marshall Public Library--an entity supported by TAX DOLLARS. By Federal law, the rules of separation of church and state come into play here.

Kathy reported on that issue fairly, objectively, and without bias.

She has the right to her opinion and she has her own blog--outside the rules and ethics of reporting--that give her the opportunity to share her opinions. You want a blog? Ask for it. It's not that difficult.

By her obligations as a journalist and her rights afforded by the Constitution, Kathy is free to write whatever she chooses. Kathy has an obligation to support the laws of the Constitution of the United States--including reporting on issues that nudge the edge of "church and state". Reporting on ANYTHING using personal feeling as the motivation completely derides the rules of objective journalism. It makes the newspaper a diary instead of a legitimate, unbiased media. Sometimes I don't like it either. But that's the way it is. But that is also why EDITORIALS have been a separate source for opinion for as many years as there has been press. Today, we call them blogs.

Kathy's blog was satire. Her point was clear and her true heart was made evident. She doesn't have to explain it to you or anyone else. What she stated, she stated in a BLOG where she is given more leniancy to state opinions. You don't like her opinion? DON'T READ IT.

But if you're going to pull this "christian crusader" routine, give Christ the respect He deserves and state your name to the woman you keep trying to crucify here!!

I don't know about Jesus, but there's at least one fellow Christian who is largely unimpressed with your tactic. By your own confession, you are an adulterer, a thief, a liar, and a coward in the eyes of God (Matthew 5:28). Who are you to question anyone and continue to demand answers when they've already been given? What about those people who read these blogs and have questions? Who are they going to ask? You? Pardon me, but, who is ceymore? Who is smokin' cheetah? We are nameless, faceless, bloggers. How can ANYONE read these blogs and look to us as examples of how to live their lives day in and day out? I could be a transgender pedophile meth head. How would you know?

WHO ARE YOU TO CONTINUE THIS ATTACK? Yes. It's an attack. You keep stating the same things over and over, relentlessly. That pretty much falls under the definition of "attack".

As a person of faith myself I'm going to share this with you; take it however you like: You are EXACTLY the kind of believer that scares people away from the church and, more importantly, the Word of God. You can call it a "simple question" all you want. A cat can have kittens in the oven; that don't make 'em biscuits. In my opinion, you are doing more harm than good. Accept it or not, but regardless, I am now joining the ranks of those who are done discussing this with you. But I will leave you with this one thought:

Mother Nature--GOD's nature--is exceptionally more delicate than most people realize. A butterfly in Kansas can flap it's wings one time and cause a monsoon halfway around the world. Do you think a butterfly *knows* it has such power? That small, subtle, unrealized whiff of air current can be all the added energy necessary to cause a catastrophic event oceans away. If a butterfly is capable of that, why should ANY of us give ANY ONE THING more attention than it deserves? The greatest power ALL of us possess is a power largely unrealized and never thought about. That is, our influence over others--the lasting impressions we make or the CATASTROPHY we create. The human heart, mind, and soul is even more delicate than the balance of nature.

What impression do you wish to leave, ceymore?

Consider that a rhetorical question.

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.

bah, humbug!....

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

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...

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.

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.

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.

ceymore,

I have a few, very simple, questions for you. These are personal questions about you. I'm asking because, for all you're hype, you really haven't stated a cause. So here goes:

Are you a Christian?

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?

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

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

Smokin' cheetah

The first. No bait just understanding.

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 :)

ceymore,

I likely stand better odds of seeing the craters of the moon in broad daylight using a Coke bottle as a telescope than to expect you not to respond to the following, but what the heck...

You posted under Kathy's "banned books" blog--and then again here a couple of times--"I know understand your general dislike for Christianity, and the reason you spoke on behalf of several "graphic" novels."

My issue is with the word "know". Frankly, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever in the context in which you used it. So I'm going to pose two theories based solely on your use of this word "know".

NUMBER ONE: You mis-spelled *now*, inadvertently adding a "k", as in "I *NOW* understand your general dislike for Christianity, and the reason you spoke on behalf of several "graphic" novels." IF this theory is correct, then YOU were the one setting the bait by making a generalized but rather sarcastic statement, drawing some imaginary connection between an anecdotal story Kathy shared about her childhood and an issue that stupified entirely too **** many people over two years ago.

NUMBER TWO: You inadvertently left out the word "and", as in "I know *AND* understand your general dislike for Christianity, and the reason you spoke on behalf of several "graphic" novels." IF this theory is correct, then that makes you possibly the most presumptuous individual with web access, would likely explain Kathy's response that you "know nothin of the sort", and still makes you guilty of an imaginary connection.

Again, these are just theories. I ain't no English major. It would be a misappropriation of emotion to feel insulted by these comments until such time has passed that these theories could be tested.

Either way, it's gonna be **** hilarious if all this lip service was given over a typo:)

I'm a bit puzzled, ceymore.

Not that you owe me or anyone else an explanation, but, as an obvious opponent to the placement of these two books in the public library (and I'm extrapolating your distaste for the content in general, location notwithstanding), you seem to remember the actual content of these books with much greater detail more than, well, anyone else I've spoken to. Ever.

Kathy has been accused of baiting folks to this topic. In all fairness, I can see how some could arrive at that conclusion--though I disagree with it. But it is you, ceymore, who professes great disdain for the subject matter of these two graphic novels, all the while publicizing (and almost advertising) their content. Don't you think it's possible young children and adolescents may read your graphic descriptions and decide, then, to check it out for themselves? Wouldn't you, then, be somewhat responsible for enticing these innocent young readers to the very material you claim to abhore?

I think the Bible is many things to many people, and I believe it's all dependent upon a number of factors: Upbringing, faith, social consciousness, and even particular denomination. For some, the Bible may very well be regarded as a work of fiction (though, to profess to be a Christian and then call the story of Jesus fiction begs a lot of questions). For some it's a bunch of bogus hogwash written to threaten and intimidate our ancestors who were "less educated" than we are today. For many, those stories in the Bible are not works of fiction meant to entertain, but rather are examples--many considered to be true accounts--of *how* to live and *how not* to live and giving reasons to support each.

I believe Kathy's comparison of the stories of the Bible to these two graphic novels was complete (and intended) professional satire, with perhaps a dash of sarcasm:) I'll go way out on the limb and even say that I do not believe her comparison was intended to define the Holy Bible as a whole, but rather to depict some of the stories in It's pages as graphic. Let's face it--some of them are. Come on, sleeping with your own father? Getting swallowed up by a whale? Killing your brother out of jealousy? If she is guilty of anything, it is AT MOST not being more clear on that fact, in my very humble opinion. She may even have constructed a rope bridge linking Church and state, depending on the individual perspective...

So...what would Jesus do, ceymore? In the book of Mark, Jesus tells his disciples that when they go into a town and no one wants to hear them, they should "knock the dust" from their feet and keep on truckin'.

Your stump's due for a break, my friend.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Again Kathy,

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

ceymore - it may have been a majority of THOSE PRESENT, but I doubt it represented the entire county. The Library board made a reasonable decision; parents can refuse to check out objectionable material for their children; raping virgins in the Bible is still rape, as is 'lying with their father' still incest, no matter how you gloss it... Tom Paine nearly got run out on a rail for The Age of Reason, Ben Franklin liked to sunbathe nude and died the 'father of American Syphillis'...

And it's all fiction, and open to interpretation, which is what the First Amendment is all about.

Your view is that you object - ok. Don't let your children check out the smut. Don't dump the responsibility on the Library staff - that's YOUR job as a parent. THEIR job is to protect the rights of the citizenry to unfettered (even if unpopular) free flow of information - period.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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