Let me begin this short post by apologizing ahead of time for taking a small detour away from thoughts on Biblical issues. I am asserting my rights as the writer to diverge from it in order to quickly comment on something that has happened at work which is really troubling to me. You see, the Nampa Public Library, for which I work, has returned some controversial books on sexuality to the shelves. You may be surprised to know that this does not trouble me as much as another issue which I will address in just a moment. For now, however, please read the aricle in the Idaho Press-Tribune, found here
Now then, a number of years ago the library was approached by concerned citizens and asked to remove the books because they were considered pornographic in nature. I suspect that another major motivator was the presence of one book in paritcular since it had to do with homosexuality. Because I hold to the Bible as the literal and revealed Word of God, I believe the best way to impact our society is by sharing Christ and making disciples of all people, NOT by forcing others to believe as we do; but be that as it may, the citizens exercised their rights to protest the books in question. While many of my co-workers and others immediately took up the cry of censorship, I believe this is an exaggeration. Censorship is given different definitions by different groups depending on their own agenda, but traditionally censorship has been the action of the government attempting to ban material by preventing its access by any means. This was not the case here at all. Access to the books would be limited at the library but nobody can truly censor books from everywhere else, only a government can do that. Besided which, all citizens have the right to express concern, to challenge books, and to have a voice in the decisions of their government, local or federal. So while I disagreed with the manner in which the books were challenged (there were many exaggerations and even complete falsehoods were used to justify the attack on the books...unfortunately by many people I attended church with at the time), I have never thought that those who brought the challenge were wrong in doing so...even if I do think there were confused as to their duties as Believers.
At any rate, the Board at that time voted to keep the books in the collection because of the library's mission statement and collection development policy. In many ways, they were right to do so. I don't say I agree with the decision made, but I can see why they made it. So at that time many people celebrated the "defeat of censorship" or were saddened by the "defeat of family values," the label applying to which side you were on, of course. Regardless though, a local board made a decision and that is as it should be.
Fast forward to June of this year, when a Board made up of a couple of different members once again faced a challenge to the same books, brought up again by the same people. This time, however, the Board moved to sequester the books in the Director's office and then change the collection development policy to prevent pornographic books from being selected. I lost no sleep over the removal of the books, but I was still concerned over the Board's decision, but only because they should have changed the policy first and then allowed the books to remain until they could be weeded out if they were not being circulated (which is our policy with all books). Again though, a local board made a decision and some people were sad but others were happy. And now, as you know if you've read the article linked above, the books are once again on the shelves (as of today).
Here is my issue: However chaotic local government can be, and however much people on either side of an issue will fight within the community, it is at the local level that these things belong. The ACLU, however, has come into a situation and unilaterally decided for everyone what is right and what is wrong! This really makes me upset. Whether for good or bad, our local governing entities have the right to make decisions for which we elect them, but outsiders come into a community and decide it does not matter how people feel about an issue so long as they know what is right and what is wrong. Rule by judicial fiat in other words. And now, while many of my co-workers will rejoice that the books are back on the shelves, our local autonomy has been washed away because a powerful lobby has used its wealth to intimidate into compliance our Board of Trustees. I wish they would have been willing to take this all the way to the Supreme Court, but I cannot judge them too harshly for not doing so. The members did what they felt was the right thing to do, and I respect that. But I do not have any respect for the bullies of the ACLU...and as for those who are all too happy over the decision, I can only think of that scene in "Revenge of the Sith" (come on, it's a GREAT movie!) when the empire is declared...and Mrs. Skywalker turn to her retinue and says, "Is this how democracy dies? To the sound of applause?" (I know, it's not an exact quote!) This is exactly how I feel. Again, democracy is messy, but it is about what the people want, not what lobbies determine is best.
Those are my thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
While I respect your right to opine that it is an "outside" group "intimidating" the local government and trying to undo the "will of the people," I take issue with the matters in quotes - the "outside" group has LOCAL menbers, and represents EVERYONE in the Nampa community's constitutional rights. All the ACLU did was remind the board of the first item on the addendum to that obscure document called the Constitution, point out that the board violated it, and asked them to reconsider their decision. Wisely, the board reversed itself, and should be commended for being good fiscal stewards of taxpayer dollars for avoiding lengthy, costly litigation over their indefensible decision.
Although I've not read any of your blogs regarding the Ten Commandments issue in Boise, if you've written any, I must say that it seems a tad hypocritical for a self-professed Christian to call the ACLU bullies when they approached the library board, yet it's perfectly acceptable for a radically conservative Christian group to do do the same thing to the library board, and for Christian activists to sue a city to impose its will on local government by forcing it to place the Ten Commandments monument in the park. But, since you did not say that, I will not so accuse you.
You have a thoughtful and well-written blog, and I will read more. Thank you for sharing your ideas.
The ACLU acts when it is contacted by a citizen who believes his or her rights are in jeopardy somehow. I assume that a Nampa resident asked the ACLU for assistance. Thus, the ACLU did not act "unilaterally."
Also, the ACLU didn't decide for everyone what is right and wrong! The Nampa Library Board voted to place the books back on the shelves, so that adults can have access to them.
When you mention that the ACLU of Idaho's wealth as a lobbyist, it should be clarified that the attorneys working on this issue were skilled and very much volunteering their time. Working on behalf of residents in Nampa, these attorneys would have been giving their expertise pro bono.
When a city or its agents make illegal policies, they should be reminded of their civic obligations to uphold the Consitution. Taking a city or its agents to task, too, is part of the democracy we all hold dear. And when you find that you or those you affiliate with need to fight the government for your rights, you will be glad for this aspect of our democracy.
Dear Anonymous:
Please read my latest post...it was too long to put in the comments section! :-)
Untamedshrew:
I do understand how the ACLU operates, and am aware a local citizen would have had to contact them. I stand by my use of the word "unilaterally" because I do feel that the threat of lawsuit meets the definition of the word. "Unilateraly" does not mean what you seem to think it means (I'm having "Princess Bride" flashbacks!), its actual definition is "Of, on, relating to, involving, or affecting only one side." I'm pretty sure this fits how I used the word.
As for not deciding for others what is right or wrong...come on, do you really think the Board would have reversed its decision without the threat of a lawsuit? A different board, quite likely, but not the current one. So the Board was indeed "forced" to make a decision it did not want to make.
Mona State:
I am honestly glad to hear that the lawyers involved were so willing to give of themselves. While I may disagree with how they choose to use their talents I cannot say anything against their heartfelt convictions. It is somewhat dishonest, however, to imply the money it would take to wage a lengthy battle would not come from the warchest of the ACLU. And don't get me wrong...I know the ACLU has done great things in the past and cotinues to do so, but that is irrelevent to my position that this is a local matter best left to the citizenship and the local governing authorities to hash out.
As to holding cities and governing entties accountable for making "illegal policies," that's the issue isn't it? Whether sequestering the books is illegal or not is subject to personal opinion, far removed from a person being denied the right to vote, or to publish a blog that takes the position I do! ;-)
If I am ever in a position where I need to defend myself against my own government on an issue of civil liberties...I will trust to my God to see me through.
Thank you for your comments
untamedshrew:
I forgot to thank you for your comments, so I apologize for that. Whether I agree or disagree with you, I do think we can do so without any overt animosity. I think so anyhow! ;-)
On KBOI News/Talk 670 dated 9/9/2008, with Nate Shelman, a library board member said, "Both sides in this controversy are very sincere...."
False!
The ACLU knowingly, intentionally, and purposefully flat out lied to the community. The ACLU knew it was wrong, yet it intentionally lied to the community, with the purpose of imposing its own agenda over the citizens of Nampa.
Wow--harsh words, right? Watch as I back them up.
The ACLU attorney was on KBOI saying embarrassment for asking for the books was an unconstitutional bar to free access, freedom of speech, the First Amendment, etc. You all remember that? On a radio station in Boise, in 2008, the ACLU said embarrassment makes what Nampa did illegal, right?
Well in the 2003 case of US v. American Library Association, et al., in the context of children's access to inappropriate materials on public library computers, the argument was made that people might be too embarrassed to ask a librarian to temporarily disable a computer filter. However, the Court said, "The District Court viewed unblocking and disabling as inadequate because some patrons may be too embarrassed to request them. 201 F. Supp. 2d, at 411. But the Constitution does not guarantee the right to acquire information at a public library without any risk of embarrassment."
The Constitution does not guarantee the right to acquire information at a public library without any risk of embarrassment!
So this is an issue already asked and answered in the US Supreme Court. It is the *exact opposite* of what the ACLU attorney said.
But you know what makes this even worse? Do you know why the ACLU knows it is misleading Idaho citizens listening in on KBOI and possibly in the letter to the library that frightened the library so?
Ready?
The ACLU was part of the "et al." in US v. American Library Association, et al.!!! And see details of the ACLU's involvement in this matter.
Back to where I started, there is no way at all that "Both sides in this controversy are very sincere...." Instead, the ACLU knowing, intentionally, and purposefully flat out lied to the community.
The community need not fear an expensive legal tussle with the ACLU. The court should immediately throw out the matter as frivolous and possibly malicious litigation in light of the ACLU's actions in Nampa, on Idaho's airwaves, and in US v. ALA.
safelibraries.org:
Thank you for your comments and for the insight you provide.
Ruffled some feathers eh?
I am loving your blog by the way.
The writing is very intelligent, articulate, and eloquent. I wish I could say the same for mine. I am glad we have gotten back in touch.
Wandered over as part of a google on the topic. My wife is an elementary school librarian at a public school. She is used to books being challenged by parents for good reasons and bad.
My worry, as with anonymous's comment above, is that the ACLU and other civil liberties groups throw around the word "constitutional" inaccurately, almost as an implied threat to boards and library committees that would choose to remove a book. Some removals are unconstitutional, some aren't. The rules are also different for schools, libraries, bookstores, and public forums, and all rules do not cross-apply.
I liked your blog and invite you to mine. I write on social and political topics more than on my Christian faith, but there is necessarily some overlap.
AVI:
Thank you for your comments! I have visited your blog and added it to my "favorites" so that I can keep up on it.
I agree with your sentiments completely but I am not sure you referenced them correctly because "anonymous" I believe is actually in favor of what the ACLU has done. ;-)
Post a Comment