Christians sue for right to burn gay teen novel

reply to post by UltraAgentGirl

Adding fuel to the fire, the Christian Civil Liberties Union (CCLU) in April filed a legal claim against the city of West Bend, Mayor Kristine Deiss, and the West Bend Library Board and Library Director. The CCLU claims the books have damaged its plaintiffs mentally and emotionally. And, they want a real fire: their final demand is not only to remove the books from the library but to destroy them in a public burning.

No, the fuel was added when the librarian accused them of trying to censor the Books of the library and flatly refused to do it. I can't help it that she underestimated these parents resolve or her lack of maturity and understanding that MOST people don't want to worry about our libararys carrying smut or giving them any ideas how cool it is to use the "N" word and mock Christians which this book in fact suggests.

I didn't see any of that in the books mentioned. Would you like to provide us with quotes?

I do get your logic though.
I once heard it from a rapist when he used the fact that his victim resisted to justify stabbing her.
"You're bringing this on yourself by resisting," is a very ancient attitude.

Do you see it as a good thing if people are thrown out of their jobs for allowing stories featuring gays in a public library?

. . . to answer your question, under these circumstances, yes I think she got what she asked for.

Again, a surprising similarity to the rapist I mentioned above.

It's so sad to see someone who supposes themselves to be a Christian, glad to see people thrown out of work just to satisfy their narrow-minded prejudices.

If I did not have a mind of my own, and believed all the erroneous baloney I have seen said about it here in this thread, I STILL wouldn't think banning books are appropriate but Ill reiterate that this was never about banning a book until the Librarian insisted it would be the only way to get her to wake up.

You are still making totally unsupported statements. Your own source contradicts this version of the story.

Fanatics of any kind who act as pamphleteers stoking the fires of discord is just too much exercise.

Let me get this sraight.
You believe the murdered abortion doctor deserved to be murdered.
You alerted on this thread, believing it had no right to exist.
You are glad people have been thrown out of their positions because they were against removing a lovely, compassionate book about teenage homosexual romance from the "children's" part of the library.

And you don't like fanatics . . .

You won't find many adulterers marching down the streets of Boston with placards saying "I am married and I may not go down in history and I may not go down on my wife, but Ill go down on my secretary!"

No.
Instead you'll find them in the pulpits, proudly proclaiming their hatred for gays.



Regarding the book burners, I hope that one day there will be a treatment for people who believe it's their divine duty to interfere in the lives of others and force their beliefs onto the community.

Originally posted by watchtheashes
I'm not advocating burning books like Focus on the Family did to Harry Potter. Those are extremist actions that will bring about the New World Order faster. I'm simply giving you a warning. That's my job.

so your ok with your ok with your "cult" burning a lifestyles "propaganda" but if anyone in the homosexual "cult" tries to burn your lifestyles "propaganda" you will go up in arms? gays arent advocating the burning of literature of discrimination... as far as i can tell. where as the bible might have some good in it but it harbors just as much potential for evil. But of course your narrow-minded one-sided mind cant even grasp what im trying to tell you.

reply to post by UltraAgentGirl


You are more then welcome to belive what ever you want to. I personally say that homosexuality is wrong I do not agree with it. But I also say that they as humans deserve the same rights and privliges as you or me. If you want to believe that they will burn in hell fine I'm right there with you. But what gives you the right to tell them or me or anyone else what we can or cannot read or do. Just because you and many christians do not agree with what this book says that does not give you the right to censor it from the rest of us. In all honesty all you have done is shine a brighter spotlight on the book and shown how pigheaded many christians can be.

I didn't see any of that in the books mentioned. Would you like to provide us with quotes?

I do get your logic though.
I once heard it from a rapist when he used the fact that his victim resisted to justify stabbing her.
"You're bringing this on yourself by resisting," is a very ancient attitude.

Yes you have finally figured it out with your uncanny grasp of what is logical. Do you know what would have been more logical is that if Librarians like this one, and those who have done this in the past, would not think placing pornographic literature in public librarys for young minds to augment their sexual deraved nature suggesting such debased activity is perfectly normal. After all it is only natural to rape when atheists like you use such natural occurances. Do monkeys not rape other monkeys?

Yes they do and snakes rape female snakes.

So tell me why do you consider the logical conclusion of my disapproval of this librarian is tantamount with stabbing a victim of a rapist when it is rapists like this that read crap like that and justify it twisting logic like YOU.

If you want to talk logic, then at least be logical and leave your silly semantically supposed sensationalism to quantify a rapists excuse for a parents reasoning and logic out of it. You just may be giving someone an excellent excuse to act out just such a crime and the rationale to justify it.

Ill let that sink in.

Instead you'll find them in the pulpits, proudly proclaiming their hatred for gays.

I'm afraid you are right about that one and ya know what,,
I don't hold back giving them the same reprisal if they are gay and condeming gays no more than I would you for using that tired old stick to beat Christians with called "intolerance".

On that score, you can bet I am intolerant and to my knowledge, and what I have seen so far, I am no worse than anyone I have seen here.

The only difference is, you are intolerant of the truth.

You believe the murdered abortion doctor deserved to be murdered.

I am a Christian, so what I think we deserve is hell, as for the Doctor, I can only say, by the grace of God, there go I. The fact he died a horific death tells me he reaped what he sewed and the proof of that is the way he died. Someone who thought they had a RIGHT to take the life of another, took his. Had they done this when he was a baby, many other children born of mothers thinking they had this right to kill, might still be alive today and the doctors demise would not be considered a murder but merely a womans right to choose.

You alerted on this thread, believing it had no right to exist.
You are glad people have been thrown out of their positions because they were against removing a lovely, compassionate book about teenage homosexual romance from the "children's" part of the library.

And you don't like fanatics . . .

I never said it had no right to exist, I merely thought it was in need of moderation because it was so off topic and still is. The law suit brought is not in the name of Christianity and of the few parents involved, I have seen this discussion become nothing but an excuse to bash christians who happen to be parents and voters and Americans and people with their own opinions too but this law suit has NOTHING to do with Christianity in general nor does it represent Christians enmasse.

No I am not for "removing" the tasteless smut about a kids issues with his homosexual proclivities and the excuses given in it saying its OK to be gay and all the suggestions it gives on just how best to do that.

READ MY POST.

I said I was for MOVING it to an age appropriate area of the library because it was in violation of the obscenity laws for pornographic literature just like an X rated movie, some parents don't want that kind of thing being given a G rated mistake.

reply to post by UltraAgentGirl

Originally posted by UltraAgentGirl
"MOST people don't want to worry about our libararys carrying smut or giving them any ideas how cool it is to use the "N" word and mock Christians which this book in fact suggests."

I'm rather happy that our "libararys" aren't censoring literature.

If they took every book that had the n-word, racism, or homosexuality in it off the shelf, you could say good by to books like:

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn - a book that is on almost every high school english class's must read list.
The Color Purple, a book that has already faced unreasonable bans in America in the past.
How about Shakespearean Literature as well? Having used "moor" as a derogatory word for africans, we might as well pull Shakespeare's play Titus Andronicus from the shelves.

Why stop there? Films should be retracted too, and history should even be rewritten. We wouldn't want young scholars knowing that Alexander the Great took men to his bed! Why, the entire truth of the world's greatest homosexuals and most dreadful racial trespasses should all be with held from the minds of mankind!

We should begin burning civil war books while we're at it. What if the youth of the nation were to learn that we as the United States once submitted men and women to slavery simply because they didn't look like us? That would be dangerous if they had that sort of knowledge.

Have you even READ the book in question? Don't you dare state "which this book in fact suggests" unless you have actually read the book. Baby Be-Bop may be a work of fiction, but it depicts every day difficulties faced by men and women across the world. I was kicked out of my church youth group when someone I was close to outed me in high school. I had trouble finding a church in my town that I could openly attend with out being asked to leave or repent for my sins- sins I had yet to even commit. This book does not suggest anything that hasn't been faced by one person or another.

Christians aren't pure. You're just people like me. The only difference is you like penis.

Originally posted by jmotley

You are more then welcome to belive what ever you want to. I personally say that homosexuality is wrong I do not agree with it. But I also say that they as humans deserve the same rights and privliges as you or me.

Thank you, for agreeing, and to clarify, I believe they have the same "rights" and "privleges" also, as long as they ARE the same having to follow the SAME rules we have to. In other words, it is not a RIGHT to marry anyone you want whether you believe or not, no society can survive without rules or behavior. Period. No matter that they come from the Ten Commandements, your heart, of the Illuminati.

As far as I am concerned, people have the freedom to believe anything they want as long as they don't come hunting me down in the dead of night simply because I happen to be of the wrong race, ethnicity, or skin pigmentation. Believe what you want. We can debate your belief if you want, but as long as your belief is not intrinsecally evil, I have no problem with anyone thinking whatever they want to think.

You seem to believe that being a Christian automatically makes the person someone who will dictate his morals on to someone else, whether you like it or not. And yet, you fail to note that atheists would do the same, based on their own notions of morality which, we must admit, every person on this planet has to a certain extent.

So why are you so afraid of Christians telling you how to behave, but not of atheists doing the same? A Christian will admonish you not to kill, because his faith dictates so.

And you will tell me the same, because your heart says so.

Or do you think that an atheistic society will NOT impose codes of behavior towards others? You think we will all have the right to do as we please then?

Who has told you that atheists, or gays, who have pontificated this idea they are so progressive and modern thinking everyone is so eager to join them because ..,, Ohh la la they are just so cool and whats in style!

What makes you think just by virtue of being atheist or gay or progressive, they are somehow better armed to decide ethical principles than those who believe in a Deity of some kind, and whose moral precepts are informed by that belief?

Haven't atheists ever been in charge of law and morality before in certain societies, in a few countries such as the Soviet Union, Cambodia, or China to name a few?


Care to discuss the marvelous results?

I didn't shine a brighter light on this book, The OP did.

All I am doing is explaining why it was put in the right place defending the parents right and obligaton for doing the right thing, offering legal and logical reasons for doing which have already been ajudicated

Originally posted by UltraAgentGirl
Thank you, for agreeing, and to clarify, I believe they have the same "rights" and "privleges" also, as long as they ARE the same having to follow the SAME rules we have to. In other words, it is not a RIGHT to marry anyone you want whether you believe or not, no society can survive without rules or behavior. Period. No matter that they come from the Ten Commandements, your heart, of the Illuminati.

You are saying homosexuals "have the same 'rights' and 'privileges'...as long as they are the same...rules" you follow. Meaning homosexuals can have rights, so long as they aren't better rights than yours. That makes sense.

Then you follow that up with "it is not a right to marry anyone you want". So you as a heterosexual [note that I didn't say as a Christian] can marry the person you love, but as a homosexual I don't deserve that same right?

So you can have better rights than homosexuals?

Who has told you that atheists, or gays, who have pontificated this idea they are so progressive and modern thinking everyone is so eager to join them because ..,, Ohh la la they are just so cool and whats in style!

What makes you think just by virtue of being atheist or gay or progressive, they are somehow better armed to decide ethical principles than those who believe in a Deity of some kind, and whose moral precepts are informed by that belief?

You want to talk about a novel [that I doubt you've read, mind you] mocking Christianity? How dare you mock homosexuality and flaunt on a forum? You're no better than the image you have constructed of Miss Francesca Lia Block.

What makes you think that we are no better "armed to decide ethical principles". Do you think that just because someone is homosexuals they can't believe in God or attend church? Because, honey, you've got another thing coming if that is your depiction of homosexuals.

Originally posted by lockeloli1848

I'm rather happy that our "libararys" aren't censoring literature.

Look, if you are a parent YOU ACT like one and the last thing you do is allow the Governments state religion being taught in our public schools what our kids selection of pornographic literature is and is not.

If they took every book that had the n-word, racism, or homosexuality in it off the shelf, you could say good by to books like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn - a book that is on almost every high school english class's must read list.
The Color Purple, a book that has already faced unreasonable bans in America in the past.
How about Shakespearean Literature as well? Having used "moor" as a derogatory word for africans, we might as well pull Shakespeare's play Titus Andronicus from the shelves.

Yes yes yes and lets just have the Dept of health use illustrations and depictions of sex from Jugs Magazine in our public schools library and as you said, why stop there lets start having tax payers pay for sex change operations on four year olds like they do in Boston or hand out brocures during gay day saying jerking off with freinds is cool like those given by the Dept of Health in the state of Mass. Hell why stop there using your own tactic for debate. Lets just have students come to class naked.

If you want to take the sublime to the ridiculous then why stop there.

Because unlike "some" in this thread. I know the diference between what is a book promoting sex bhind a political agenda to give gays special protections for hate crimes making it illegal to have an opinion about keeping the very smut contained in this book from being read by children to young to know all the ramifications ADULTS like I assume you are, should know, and yes I HAVE read it and the lawsuits details.

HAVE YOU

Christians aren't pure. You're just people like me.

Then why don't you get off their neck about how pure you say they think they are. Most I know don't think that at all.

The only difference is you like penis.

Huh!? what the?? Grrrrr Get the hell on topic for petes sake and quit trying to get a "rise" out this argument

Originally posted by lockeloli1848

You are saying homosexuals "have the same 'rights' and 'privileges'...as long as they are the same...rules" you follow. Meaning homosexuals can have rights, so long as they aren't better rights than yours. That makes sense.

Copy paste that quote if you are going to suggest I made such a claim or withdraw the claim. I never said anything like that.

Then you follow that up with "it is not a right to marry anyone you want". So you as a heterosexual [note that I didn't say as a Christian] can marry the person you love, but as a homosexual I don't deserve that same right?

Again, copy paste the quote I said anything about a homosexual not having a right to get married under the same laws and privleges of the general public.

How dare you mock homosexuality and flaunt on a forum? You're no better than the image you have constructed of Miss Francesca Lia Block.

How dare me mock sin? that is what homosexuality IS to a Christian did you not know this or are you staging a strawman?

Umm did I mention that I am a Christian?

We don't mock sin we are to rebuke it. As for the sinner engaged in that sort of thing, I know many Christian Homosexuals and I would hate to have that thorn in my flesh but I have my own I deal with everyday and just like they do, I try very hard not to yeild to my own self centered indulgences much less march down streets in an attempt to get Governments and Churchs to not only accept it but endorse it.

reply to post by UltraAgentGirl


What does Christianity have to do with the American Government?

And these books were not pornographic in nature...

They were as "graphic" as any of the sweet valley high books which saturate the young adult section of the library... The only difference is that they are of homosexual nature not of heterosexual nature...


No one is advocating putting pornography in the libraries. We are only saying that there is no difference between a young adult book on heterosexual relationships and a young adult book on homosexual relationships... Unless of course you view it through your own religious lens of "right & wrong"... Which has no bearing on what is in the Public Library

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

What does Christianity have to do with the American Government?

what exactly are you reffering to? No let me just answer this question.

I am an American, a Christian Tax Payer and a Voter

Nuff said

And these books were not pornographic in nature...

Who said so? YOU? When do YOU decide what my kids should read? This is why the lawsuit took place and why the book was moved.

Originally posted by UltraAgentGirl
Who said so? YOU? When do YOU decide what my kids should read? This is why the lawsuit took place and why the book was moved.

Originally posted by intrepid
As a parent I would say that that is your decision on what your children should read. I will add though, who are you to decide what others read?

Well as parents I say we are seeing eye to eye but regarding the second part of your statement, I am the same person the that has to live by the rule of law I assume YOU are and THAT finally brings us back to the topics real issue and the one where the courts and judges were created just for differences and opinions like this, were created for and why these parents had every right to find out, exactly who was right.

I would have been just as strident in my defending the neccessity to live by the rule of that law as I assume you would have if the case were decided the other way. Does that help?

Oh and,, I don't know about you, intrepid, but I probably wouldn't let my kid go to that library anymore. Their are government laws and then their is "House Rules" and in our house, you get grounded and lose your texting priveleges LOL

[edit on 6/15/2009 by UltraAgentGirl]

Originally posted by UltraAgentGirl
Does that help?

Not really. Why does your right to raise you kids as you see fit, which is perfectly your right, infringe on society? What if others don't see this in the same light? You would have the judiciary act on the whims of some to the opposition of others? Why?

[edit on 15-6-2009 by intrepid]

reply to post by UltraAgentGirl

I see another trend in society rapsthebats and it is one where atheist's mingle together just to piss people off and spread ignorance about a book they invariably don't understand and THINK they do.

Hey dude,you know that's kinda not unlike many many many xtians of many many many flavours all proselytizing in relation to books they invariably don't understand but "INSIST" that they do and no one else does.
The irony is somewhat ironic.

Originally posted by intrepid

Not really. Why does your right to raise you kids as you see fit, which is perfectly your right, infringe on society? What if others don't see this in the same light? You would have the judiciary act on the whims of some to the opposition of others? Why?

[edit on 15-6-2009 by intrepid]

Infringe? I would say it does for the same reason my right to tell YOU you can't sell drugs (not that you are a drug dealer or anything) to anyones kids who do not see it the same way I do.

I mean how academic does this have to get?

[edit on 6/15/2009 by UltraAgentGirl]

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by UltraAgentGirl

 

I see another trend in society rapsthebats and it is one where atheist's mingle together just to piss people off and spread ignorance about a book they invariably don't understand and THINK they do.

Hey dude,you know that's kinda not unlike many many many xtians of many many many flavours all proselytizing in relation to books they invariably don't understand but "INSIST" that they do and no one else does.
The irony is somewhat ironic.

I'm sorry, I am not familiar with "xtians" dude, and I am not proselytizing to you am I? Have you seen me make any effort at all to talk someone into "being saved" ? No you have not

Originally posted by UltraAgentGirl
Infringe? I would say it does for the same reason my right to tell YOU you can't sell drugs to anyones kids who do not see it the same way I do.

I mean how academic does this have to get?

You're equating a gay book to drugs?

Academic? Do you know the meaning of the word? Time to leave the pulpit and engage the world in reality. I haven't sold drugs to kids, nor do I think they should use them. I'll leave you with one term as I don't think you will be moved from your frozen perch.......... "Critical thinking".

reply to post by UltraAgentGirl


Is there Sweet Valley High in your library? Does it have stories about girls liking guys and guys liking girls?

What is the difference between that and guys liking guys or girls liking girls?

The only difference that you have made so far is that your particular brand of Christianity sees this as sinful.

However, if you were a Shaker, another brand of Christianity, the very mention of anything of a sexual nature would be seen as sinful, so any book that mentions any sexual relationship would have to be banned...

Because of this we come to common understanding of what is publicly acceptable and what is privately acceptable.

For example, pornography, which is gratuitous use of sexual imagery is deemed socially acceptable in this Country, only for private use. However, sexual imagery which is to be found in any anatomy book in any public library is seen as acceptable for public use.

Notice this is not based upon ideas of "right or wrong" but what is suitable for Public or Private.

To say that a Young adult book which is the same as sweet valley high, but includes homosexual themes instead of heterosexual themes should not be in the public library is simply discrimination.

Even the Shakers would simply not read the books they felt were against their religion.

UPDATE: I had written Quaker, when I meant Shaker....



[edit on 15-6-2009 by HunkaHunka]

Ill post this to the both of you, Honka and Intrepid whom I am happy to see I have given the comical relief he seems so willing to display.

Yes ACADEMIC, in other words, how much of a study do we have to make this? Look a few parents saw a librarian who was re-miss in her responsibility to place books THEY thought were inappropriate for the age group that had access to them under the current obscenity laws and kindly suggested the librarian put them in the adult section.

She refused and got as haughty and as pious as those damn Christians do and she made a big deal out of it creating a blog accusing them of censorship. This was not the intention of the parents, this was the presumptuous conclusion the librarian had. So they took it to court to find out who was right and during the discovery phase of the investigation, it was discovered their had been what they called an an agenda by the librarian to promote gay material using library funds. Now I could care less who she does the wild thing with and personally I don't think anyone should even be classified by their sexual bent, but she was a lesbian and I got to say, isn't that "unUSUAL" ??

Yeah I can imply stereotypical snide remarks made about gays just as transparent as those being made about Christians but ya know what?

IT has got nothing to do with what the law says or the reasons this thread was made for.


The FACT is SHE LOST !

Whether YOU think this had anything to do with the numerous questioons and statements made here about me or those parents, or Christians in general, unless you are only for that the court decides when it suits you, or when it is only frivolous when it is about a Christian or a Parent or a Homosexual is MOOT.

She lost and THAT is all this was about.

CASE CLOSED:

[edit on 6/15/2009 by UltraAgentGirl]