Thanks to WB News today.......
"Let’s recap: a local group of fundamentalist Christians asks that a number of books be removed from the library’s shelves on completely unconstitutional grounds. "
LIE. NO BOOKS WERE ASKED TO BE REMOVED FROM THE LIBRARY SHELVES.
.....
"Julaine Appling, whose Wisconsin Family Council seminars provided the Maziarkas with the organizing skills..." OUTRIGHT LIE.
.....
They need to go further with their demands and insist the library remove the most dangerous book in the kids section, a book more hazardous to teenagers than “The Perks of Being a Wallflower,” and even more perilous than those dreadful biology books on sexuality (and evolution!) from the adult section; a book which is, arguably, the single greatest cause of spiritual distress and physical bloodshed in Western history: the New and Old Testaments of the Christian Bible. Let me be the first then to ask the Library Board this question: Do we want our children exposed to a book that includes obscenities like the following? 1. Depictions of daughters getting their father drunk so they can seduce him in order to become pregnant with their own siblings? (Genesis 19:30-36). 2. Descriptions of a prostitute trading sex for a goat? (Genesis 38:13-24). 3. Suggestions that you have your friends killed if you want to sleep with their wives? (2 Samuel 11). 4. An encouragement to marry your half sister and then let her arrange for her maid to become your mistress? (Genesis 16 and 20). 5. A defense of slavery, so long as the slaves come from neighboring countries? (Leviticus 25:44). 6. The conditions for selling your daughter into slavery? (Exodus 21:7). 7. An insistence we kill any young entrepreneur who wants to deliver Sunday papers? (Exodus 35:2). 8. Forbidding playing football with the old pigskin? (Leviticus 11:6-8). 9. Shocking phrases like “She lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose semen was like that of horses”? I mean, at what age is this appropriate? (Ezekiel 23:19-20).
10. Lurid language comparing your lover’s belly button to a goblet overflowing with wine and her breasts to fawns? (C’mon, fawns?) (Song of Songs, Chapter 7).
11. Communistic values like selling everything you own in order to subsidize the poor? (Matthew 19:21).
12. The claim that spiritual development is only possible when you learn to hate your parents, siblings, wife, and kids? (Luke 14:26).
13. And, finally, do we want anything on the shelves that teaches children to reduce matters of profound spiritual development to unanswerable, existential questions? (Ecclesiastes and Job). "
OVER AND OVER AGAIN, I have read commentaries such as Peterson's on numerous blogs. The Bible is tossed around as if it somehow depicts crude/raunchy/lurid sex acts such as those in "Deal With It" or "It's Perfectly Normal." Such comparisons are not only laughable, but greatly offensive to a faith-based community such as West Bend. Though Michael Tyree, himself, has stated that he will have to donate his eyes and ears to science if he hears the word "faith-based" one more time (I have the ORR to back this up), this is West Bend. Like it, Mark, or leave it.
By the way folks, DID YOU TAKE NOTE? Some of you parents are paying tuition right here at UWWC and footing this guy's salary. NICE.
58 comments:
I'm not comfortable with Peterson's column either, and he's also well known in the West Bend community for stacking enough half-truths or being less-than-current in his information (using falty translations and long refuted materials to back his claims) to get his point across...
But I'm not entirely sure you know what the phrase "shooting yourself in the foot" means.
You get so close Ginny, and yet so far. Its almost depressing.
Problem is, Ginny, that you DID ask for books to be removed from library shelves. That's how this all started.
And you DID attend a training seminar hosted by WFC - you even blogged and tweeted about it.
So, it is very convenient for you to Peterson of being a liar to try to deflect from his ultimate point.
What he says are facts proven by your own words.
Since you won't let me post a link to my blog, I ask readers to click on my user name, follow to my blog "Sleepless in West Bend" and then find the post "Ginny Maziarka Shoots Herself in the Foot" to see the proof.
censorfreelib.blogspot.com
It isn't clear to me why some are disturbed by Dr. Peterson's characterization of the Bible. He just quoted it.
He is trying to raise an important question of definitions. The WBC4SL want restrictions on materials based on maddeningly vague criteria, especially when applied to literature. How can you come up with detailed criteria that exclude Baby Be Bop or Wallflower but leave in the Bible?
Uh huh..
Living in West Bend, I'm sure you've met a few people who are really into cars or other collectibles. Everyone needs a hobby. To each person what they cherish most has a value to them, but to maintain that value, they have to maintain their possession. If they do not, or can not, perform maintenance on the possession, then it tends to lose value and risk being thrown away or replaced.
Philosophical values are no different and since your religion is only faith-based and not evidence based, it can only LOSE value as more evidence piles on and on and on. And like anything that has lost all of its value, beyond salvage or repair, it should be junked and thrown away.
Your religion is a philosophical welfare state. Its entirely dependent on forcing other people to surrender the merit they've worked for to give you clowns merit for your spiritual values that you either can't or wont validate on your own. Its not Peterson's fault your religion is nothing but an obsolete house of worn-out cards - including the absurdity of your Christ myth.
This is REALITY. Like or leave it.
Anon. #1: Shooting foot in self = idiom for damaging career/self/integrity.
CWBC: There you go again, trying to force truth out of a lie.
Of course, and obviously, I attended the AM seminar (mind you, ONE seminar). I blogged it openly. It had, and has, nothing to do with the library issues. It never did and, in fact, if you take a look at the blog post, you will see that it is about campaigning (school board candidates, mayoral races, etc.). To state that I attended numerous classes and that these classes provided us with organizing skills for this library issue is not only absurd, it is a LIE. Just as I said.
No, we did not ask for any books to be removed from the library. We asked that books be removed from the YA Zone. Period. We stated in our meetings with the librarians we would be fine with reclassification. We asked that they be banned from the YA Zone. The YOUNG ADULT Zone. Banned was a poor choice of words, but hey, we admit that.
Again, a LIE.
Link to American Majority blog post for those who are interested:
http://wissup.blogspot.com/2009/02/wi-family-councilamerical-majority.html
Contacted by someone who is having problems with blogger. Posting on behalf of this individual:
Number one, whoever you are Anonymous, you're a coward for not naming yourself and yet SO comfortable with slamming Ginny..who has humbled herself to the utmost degree to help the citizens of West Bend and surrounding areas.
Who are we all? Are we all so insecure that it boosts our self-esteem to belittle someone else? I feel for Mark, for his picking apart the Holy Word, as if it were a porn book on the shelf at an adult bookstore. Don't you realize that those items (minus the Song of Solomon-which depicts true love between a husband and wife..how more godly and perfect is that? That is PORN? I think you're a bit desensitized by our world, buddy) you've mentioned are SINFUL THINGS????
It's hilarious that you're even mentioning them in the same way as these other books mentioned. There is NO comparison whatsoever!!!
You'll stand before God on Judgement Day, just like the rest of us (whether you believe it or not now, it will happen!!) and I cringe to think of how God will hold you accountable for how you picked apart the Bible as a pornographic book. I am not perfect, and am in great need of my Saviour..but I fear for you. I pray you get right with God!
-greggswife
I'm the first annonymous.
First I would say that you should work on clarifying your thoughts a bit. I dont claim to be perfect, but you were talking to me at first, and some where in the first few sentences you switched to talking to Peterson. You need seperate your points instead of letting them bleed together like that. I dont support Peterson at all.
I am a bit suprised at you boldly stating that I am slamming Ginny when you dont need to look very hard on this blog to see others actually slamming.
I have posted a few times in the past attempting to constructivly criticize, but I'm slowly learning that Ginny wont listen to anyone that isnt a political radical or already a family member or close personal friend of hers.
What you and Ginny dont seem to understand is that it doesnt matter that Ginny puts herself out on a limb to embarass herself publically on the blog. Welcome to the internet. 90% of what she puts here is fantastic, truth, and neccessary. The problem is that the other 10% is absolute filth and she puts others that support her cause in an uncomfortable position because it is hard to side with some of her more extremist stances.
This is beyond the fact that she is the absolute oposite of eloquent. No one would want Ginny to try to handle the peace treaty between two factions because she simply does not have the conversational flow neccessary to influence such situations.
I love the need in this community for this sort of a cause. I just really really really really wish someone else would step up to run the show, because Ginny is harmful to its cause, and she doesnt seem to care.
By the way...
"Anon. #1: Shooting foot in self = idiom for damaging career/self/integrity."
I assure you that Peterson's article in no way damaged his career. It may have dented his integrity, and he will eventually have to face its toll on his self, but there is a shlew of better idioms you could have used in this situation other than the one you did that would have fit the situation better.
Its "slip ups" like this that are what is hurting your cause. It harms your credibility and people dont want to listen to you because they push you into that special part of their brain that identifies crazy zealots that start fires and cant have a calm reasonable conversation with someone that disagrees with them.
You know, the type that Jesus had with -almost- everyone.
Ginny,
You wrote:
"No, we did not ask for any books to be removed from the library"
But you did ask just that. You wanted 2 books removed, Geo club & Wallflower, and THE OTHERS reclassified. Maybe you need to review your own media comments.
Also, why no comment about the library renaming the web site and buying books that counter homosexuality. Those are things you requested too and they have done that. Why no comment about that? They are adding books that you want added to create 'more balance' even though it was already there. They took books from the list YOU provided and ordered them. Yet, no comment on that? I would think you would be thrilled. Is it that the move was not controversial (sp) enough for you? Not front page enough? Not channel 6 or vcy worthy?
Kristina,
Not sure what you are talking about. Do you mean why did I not mention it here as a comment to someone?
The last conversation that I had with Mr. Tyree, he stated that only ONE BOOK was being contemplated, not necessarily purchased, in an effort to add balance. Nothing more. If something has taken place to the opposite effect, I have no knowledge of this and, therefore, cannot comment. If you know more, please share. Titles? Dates of purchase? Their excuse was that the long, long list I gave as suggestions ONLY do not appear in the THEIR literary review mags. OK, well that's fine. Then do your professional librarian thing and continue looking for other titles. That's what they do, right? I look forward (really) to your response.
Anon.:
First of all, as for eloquence, I hope you haven't found any place within this blog to confirm that I believe I have such a gift. Last thing I remember reading about blogs is that they are journals/diaries/hobbies, and the like. They are meant for the enjoyment of the blogger. Others post if they want to jump in on the subject material, but are not required to do so. If my writing style, lack of ability, or inadequacy does not suit your taste, I can't apologize as I have never claimed eloquence, grammatical perfection, superior english skills, etc.
Next, if there is filth, please point it out.
Last, if you don't like the idiom I chose because you don't agree that he may have damaged his career, that is called your opinion.
By the way Anon...
I wish someone else more skilled than myself would take this over, too.
Care to go for it?
"It's hilarious that you're even mentioning them in the same way as these other books mentioned. There is NO comparison whatsoever!!!"
But of course it is possible to compare the books in question with Playboy, alcohol for minors, and no need for drivers' licenses. Admittedly, I haven't read all of the books in question, but I'd bet that not all of the "obscene" parts depict sex in a positive or godly way, just as the Bible depicts "sinful" acts.
Ginny sez: "No, we did not ask for any books to be removed from the library. We asked that books be removed from the YA Zone. Period. We stated in our meetings with the librarians we would be fine with reclassification. We asked that they be banned from the YA Zone. The YOUNG ADULT Zone. Banned was a poor choice of words, but hey, we admit that."
None of your initial statements make that convenient qualification.
Here you state "We further asked for the removal of any book in the youth section of our library, i.e., children’s, young adult/YA Zone, that contains perverse and pornographic language." Notice you don't say "from" the YA Zone, suggesting they'd be moved to somewhere else. You simply state you want them removed. Period.
Again, you state here that you requested a "ban" on the The Perks of a Wallflower book. These are your words. You didn't indicate you asked for it to be moved, you indicated you wanted it banned. Period.
While you've changed your tune since then, it remains a fact, relying on your own words, that you wanted books removed/banned when you first got on top of this horse.
Ginny-
If I still lived in West Bend I would be tempted to give it a shot.
However I do believe it would take a moderate amount of time to "clean up" some of the miss-steps you had made thus far.
As for your idiom goes, it was simply a poor choice in idioms. From a physical and earthly stand point, Peterson had nothing to lose from his posted article.
I wish that you realized that your actions are pushing people away from your ministry.
Anon,
I keep saying over and over again that I am the average person doing the best I can with a difficult situation.
You tell me that you give me constructive criticism, yet you go on to criticize with statements such as "opposite of eloquent" and "No one would want Ginny to try to handle the peace treaty between two factions because she simply does not have the conversational flow neccessary to influence such situations."
Statements like that lead me to believe you are a wolf in disguise.
Greggswife,
As I'm sure you know, not all of the passages mentioned are condemned in the Bible. It is, however, important to read them within a specific historical and theological context. Furthermore, it would ludicrous to label the Bible as obscene because of these particular passages. The Bible is an enormous multifaceted work and, like it or not, it is, at the very least, a fundamental literary source for the Western World.
But the ridiculousness of banning the Bible for obscenity is exactly the point.
No one wants the Bible banned, except for silly hypocritical "atheists" who are scared of the possibility of believing in God. Rather presenting it as a hypothetical situation points out the difficulty in reducing works of literature to key passages. When the passages occur in the books do they really exist to encourage the behavior they discuss, or are they presented to articulate how empty sexual intercourse is without love? What is the point of the passages in the context of the work as a whole and of the audience for whom it was intended?
At this point both questions are difficult to answer, which is why the library is reluctant to do any sort of labeling. When a book is labeled obscene, but still made available then, to a reader approaching it, it is always already obscene. They cannot read it in any other way than as a book with obscene passages. They may be disappointed by what they find in there, or they may be shocked, but they can't read it as, simply, a book anymore. Furthermore, when adults read these books are they able to do so with the empathy necessary to see the value they might have for a 21st century young adult? It's difficult to put yourself in that position.
You have to realize that the topics discussed in the fiction books labeled as obscene, and the topics discussed in the sex education books, are nothing new to teenagers. The books may offer a different perspective than their friends in the locker room, or they may facilitate discussion both between teens and adults. But not any more, now they are the books that have caused so much strife in West Bend. Now they are the books that should be banned. Now they are the books that are dirty and unclean. That's not what you said? It doesn't matter, that's how it's been presented, that's what kids see.
But the worst thing about this effete campaign is that even if it succeeds it still fails.
Ginny, are you really upset the books or are you upset about the society that allows these books to be created? Or from another angle, a society that necessitates books like this? Are the books really the problem or is it a society that you feel has lost its morals? If its that latter than what good does it do to rail against the literature that tries to make sense of it all?
These books are the Job and the parables of now, they are addressing current concerns and questions and you would obfuscate their meaning by placing them away from those who ask the questions they address?
Dear Mrs. Mazarkia,
How about you teach your children that you consider those books inappropriate and make sure they do not check them out? How about you let OTHER parents like Maria Hanrahan decide what THEY feel is appropriate for their children?
In short--focus on parenting your OWN children and stop trying to censor everyone else's reading privileges.
-- Sarasa
If you don't want your kids reading a book that has homosexuality in it, or really anything you deem inappropriate, talk to your kids about it. Explain to them why you don't want them to read something, and have a good discussion about it. Let them ask questions and give level-headed answers. Shoving books you deem inappropriate into a restricted section of a library doesn't help your kids understand anything and only promotes ignorance.
Ms. Mazarkia,
I am extremely disappointed that you claim to be acting in a Christian manner when asking that these books be reclassified. I refer specifically to the incident in which a member of your group, with your authorization, told library director, Michael Tyree, that he should be "tarred and feathered".
I point out immediately that such a threat is not one supported by God, Jesus Christ, and the Bible, but is instead the recommendation of an agent of the Devil. Jesus did not initiate violence. Jesus promoted open dialogue, peace amongst His fellow men, and when Satanic forces pressed Him with violence, He did not respond with the sword but instead turned the other cheek. Seeking to tar and feather anyone for any reason is to give oneself to the Evil One.
I direct you to your pastor in order to purge yourself and your organization of these sinful intents and assume a more Christianly bearing.
Regards,
Reverend A. R. Chapman
First Martyr of Christ Church
Snellville, GA
Do us all a favor and
a) Quit making sane Christians look bad
b) Start focusing on your own damn kids and talk to them about this topic, instead of choosing the immature route by pointing fingers at everyone else and censoring the books at a library.
Christ almighty
- BeardedFrog
Loki,
Great comment.
(Seriously.)
Pseudo-Rev.:
The tar/feather commenter is not a member of "my" group.
We do not agree with that statement. We do not align ourselves with such behavior.
You are not a reverend.
Funny how you immediately hide behind the Bible when confronted with your own actions. If you don't want your children reading books that contain subject matter that you're uncomfortable with, then monitor what they're getting from the library. Maybe discuss why you aren't comfortable with it. Oh, right, but that would require actually stepping up and being a PARENT, and that's everyone else's job. My bad.
Pseudo-Rev: Here is the mirror:
http://community.livejournal.com/sf_drama/2383169.html?thread=361334337
I have to wonder how many kids in West Bend are now reading the books you are objecting just to see what the controversy is all about.
Congrats on your clever campaign to get kids reading!
Mrs. Maziarkia,
You may claim what you like, but I know my sanctified position as a man who spreads the Word of God. I have not the largest church nor the most populous, but you are welcome to join us on Wednesdays and Sundays for service and to open your eyes.
As for this "mirror", I have no idea as to what you are referring to or what that site is. It shows itself as having Adult Content and I prefer not to taint myself with such. My information comes from CNN; it states on CNN itself at the link of:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/22/wisconsin.book.row/index.html
that a meeting "including one where a man told the city's library director he should be tarred and feathered." and alluded that he is a member of your organization.
Are you saying that CNN is incorrect and has lied? If so, you should pursue a case of libel against the news corporation.
Regards,
Reverend A. R. Chapman
First Martyr of Christ Church
Snellville, GA
uh huh, right rev....
"Residents have sparred for months on blogs, airwaves and at meetings, including one where a man told the city's library director he should be tarred and feathered."
In no way does CNN allude to anything of the sort.
Nice try, though.
Perhaps you could email me with a phone contact and we could chat about this personally? You know, the phone to your church office?
wbcitizens4safelibraries@gmail.com
Mrs. Maziarkia,
From this link, madam: http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6663173.html
“One local who spoke said I should be tarred and feathered and that J. K. Rowling should be shot,” says Tyree, who was the timekeeper at the gathering. “Others quoted scripture from the bible.”
This is during a debate in which one side was composed of your supporters. I ask again, in plain language - was this person one of your supporters? It is a simple question of yes or no. If he was one of your supporters, then you as leader of this group are responsible for his conduct.
This and other links seem to indicate that this man was one of your supporters. If he was not, if he is to be denied, then deny him freely. I simply ask you to remember the questions put to Peter after the Crucifixion.
As for providing you with the church office phone number, that number is my home phone number and thus will not be provided. As I stated, we are not the wealthiest or largest church; our meeting space is rented and the fellowship is small. My humble home serves as the place of 'business', if you call service to the Lord such.
Also, I feel it pertinent to remind you that it is unseemly for a man of God to engage in private conversation with a woman who is not his wife or a relative, be it by telephone, email, or in person. It leads to rumours and suspicions; it is the root of deceit and an opening to the Evil One. Propriety demands that any conversations in such a manner be public, so that all may glory in the light of truth and all intentions remain unveiled. As you are undoubtedly aware, the Apostle Paul counseled such openness.
Be not too arrogant in your assumptions, Mrs. Maziarkia. Pride is the Devil's tool.
Regards,
Reverend A. R. Chapman
First Martyr of Christ Church
Snellville, GA
That book (perks of being a wallflower), you condone so easily, changed my life. My best friend died and left me his copy of that book. Maybe you should read a little deeper into it rather than noticing that it has gay characters in it.
Oh, and you don't like books on molestation? Fantastic, after all, the only way to get kids to speak up about being molested is to ban all books about it and calling any mention of it obscene. I'm sure you're the kind of person where if your child was molested you'd just cover it all up and ask him/her not to speak of it. Stellar.
People like you are the reason that being 'Christian' is used as an insult. A Christian would not do what you're doing. A Christian would show people the way of 'God' and 'Christ', rather than being mean spirited, insulting other people, and organizing attacks on other people and free speech.
The beauty of free will is that people are free to say whatever they want. But telling people what to do, and doing things like burning books... that is inflammatory and hypocritical. Because you don't believe these books belong in the young adult section (and believe me, young adults need books like these), you really think they should be moved? Some think all Bibles should be under the 'Fiction' section but they would never suggest that. ;] See how that is offensive, an attack on free speech?
You, and all the other commenters here, are not Christians. I think Christ would be more interested in you sharing your opinions of these books with your children rather than organizing attacks on them.
I honestly think you're more interested in fighting than actually getting these books off the shelf. By naming them, there are going to be tons of kids going out and checking these books out of the library. I know I'm going to go check out that Be-Bop book. But, like I said, you're more interested in fighting. ;]
Anyway, I hope you find the real God in your life, and you become a true Christian and find some love and guidance on your life. You need it.
I cannot buy any of your arguments against Peterson, because all your comments in this past post were all made on the defensive. And what a poor defense it was. Instead of posing your own argument, you just said it was offensive. You noted the guy’s teaching position. You glorified your community. I’m not quite convinced.
Any high school graduate could tell you that the key to a convincing argument is to address what your opponent is stating and then to pose your own beliefs and opinions so as to persuade the reader that you are really on the right track.
In this case, I would have really liked to have heard you defend the Bible from these “tossings around” that Peterson does. Address the scriptures that he CLEARLY cites. You will find the Bible is a violent, violent book, full of those things you despise. And guess what? In many of these scriptures he cited, the prostitution and the gratuitous sex in all forms, they are not condemned. Take a step back and look at what YOU are reading. Is it any better in its “content” than the books you want banned? Do these events written in the Bible make the Bible a filthy book? No, of course not. That’s not looking at the larger message behind the Bible. However, you aren’t looking at the larger message that the authors of the supposedly “dirty” books may want to convey, either.
Either way, the difference between you and Peterson is that he posed convincing arguments and you plug your ears and sing as inanely and loudly as you can.
And one more thing: college students should be exposed to both sides of the story in order to grow into well-rounded, intelligent and educated adults. To insinuate that Peterson should not be paid (a.k.a. fired from his teaching position) is denying American citizens the right to make their own decisions about what they want to believe and be. So please don't pull the guilt card on UWWC parents. Their kids are getting good educations precisely BECAUSE all walks of life and all viewpoints are being represented there.
I moved away from West Bend, and thought I'd check back in here to see how things are going. I was reminded of this effort, after reading an article in the Chicago area where there was a protest over a book on a freshman summer reading list, that had vulgar language. It's sad to see how a moral vs. immoral issue has turned into a Christian vs. pretend Christian/aetheist/"anonymous" debate. Christians are supposed to stand up for morality. Believe it or not. Though it should be done in a respectful way. Whether or not some would think we should mind our own kids and leave theirs alone or not, we NEED to stand for morality. If you choose to stand for immorality, that's your right. We all were gifted with a free will. :) Maybe Christians need to be reminded from time to time to mind their attitudes. It's very easy to let the flesh take over. After all, we're not perfect... no one is. As for "turning the other cheek", may I remind you that Jesus Christ did show anger at times. Mostly it was shown towards the scribes and pharasees - they were self-righteous hypocrits and leading their "flocks" down the wrong path. Jesus didn't turn his cheek to them, he let them have it! These conversations really show the need for some intense Bible study. And I'm talking to those that claim the Christain banner. Those that only preach "God is all LOVE" are so off base. Yes Almight God loves us all! But He's a righteous God and does not tolerate sin. I'm thankful for the message I heard this morning on Matthew 5. It really dealt with this area.
And Ginny, perhaps it would be helpful to just step back from the comments on here. There really is no "winning" in these types of debates. Keep pressing on with your fight with morality vs. immorality. But responding to the hatred is doing you no good in your heart. :) I say this with all kindness.
you know what, my mother somehow managed to monitor what was i reading without storming our local library and demanding that our library director rearrange the library so that i would not be exposed to "inappropriate comment".
you know....it's that thing called "parenting"?
why don't you just do the same instead of making a scene and embarrassing the city of West Bend with your behavior?
-- R
Hi. Please keep your religion out of my government.
If you want to restrict your own children's access to knowledge, that's your business. But how dare you presume to speak for every parent?
If the shoe was on the other foot and someone wanted religious material removed or placed elsewhere, you'd be screaming bloody murder.
In closing, mind your own business, lady.
You're picking a fight with Mark Peterson now?!?! TOO FUNNY!!!
I hope you show good sportsmanship when you loose this.
Well said, Carrie.
"And Ginny, perhaps it would be helpful to just step back from the comments on here."
Well said, too. Point taken, and agree. :-)
Concerned- The good thing is that people can rethink what they are doing and correct it. We are now hoping the library will recorrect itself and move the books, keep them in the library, but move the books.
Faith can never "lose value".
I love the books like the ones that Maziarka wants to prevent children from reading, especially the ones that address sexuality in a forthright but age-appropriate way. Talking honestly with your children and letting them know the facts about their bodies and human life from a very early age is the best way to keep the lines of communication open, and avoid ever having to have uncomfortable discussions.
Talking to very small children about sex is also one of the best ways to protect them form molestation and abuse. I would much rather my child understand human anatomy and what it's for than be molested and not tell me because she doesn't understand.
At three and a half, my daughter knows the correct name for her body parts, she knows the difference between boys and girls, and she knows the very basics of sex.
I marveled a while ago; while I was pregnant, a neighbor who is four asked me how the baby gets out of the mother's belly. Her mother freaked out and spirited her away; later, she told me that she told her child that 'the doctor cuts it out.'
Why?? Why not just answer a simple question honestly?
And why try to restrict resources for parents, that are so helpful to them in teaching their children about sex and their bodies? These books are excellent resources for parents! Why hide them?
I don't think Ginny has a problem with people talking about sex with their children. In fact I am sure it is encouraged.
The problem arises when minor children read these books without an adult. This is why I suggest having the books moved and asking for parents to reconsent.
Dear Ms. Maziarka,
I am surprised to hear you object to people doubting what you say. You claim to be a big supporter of the truth. Well, let me tell you a whopper of a lie. Ginny Maziarka said that this whole confrontation started with her daughter coming home with a book that she objected. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it may have been said first to a reporter who heard that you got all your information from the internet.
I am deeply and firmly convinced that you DID get everything from your extremist we sites. Here's why. Now-- blog readers out there-- keep an open mind and analyze this in a common sense fashion.
Here's Ginny's scenario. Your daughter comes home and hands you a book that has passages that offend you. So? What would a normal person do? That's right, they would go their non-friendly homophobic web site and complain that there is not enough ex-gay literature around-- and that you don't like the library web site. Huh? Really??! Boy, here you have the book that started a movement-- the seed of the revolution, the spawn of your campaign to bring the crazies out of the woodwork. And you don't mention the book? That title-- that passage should be at the head of every blog. Where is it? When your complaint totally flip flopped from being against gay affirmation to one of scandalous passages-- the book that started it all-- should have been at the head of the list. When you started to object to individual titles: first with 2 books, then with more-- and finally your bad book list had 82 titles on it!!! You were given a very detailes spreadsheet explaining the review sources for most of these books and listing the fact that they are located in many, many other libraries. You met with the Young Adult librarian and with Mr. Tyhree. Did you mention the book? Did you bring it along? It defies every rule of logic and reason that you couldn't understand why the city attorney cancelled the scheduled Board meeting about the subject. When you went from anti- gay affirming books and lists and "ex-gay" propaganda, to 82 books that dealt largely with heterosexuality-- with specific passages, golly aren't they the same thing??? Sensible people said, "No."
Back to your story. Why wasn't the horrible "first" book, the one that started it all mentioned by name at your meeting at Silverbrook? Oh, I don't think you had made up that lie yet. People -- think. Why do you hide the start of a movement? You can't be protecting your daughter because she did nothing wrong. If she brought the book to you and showed you the passage, then she showed great respect for you and your values. She should be commended. If not for her, this "confrontation" would have never happened.
But, here is what really happened. You were embarrassed when you were accused of getting everything off the net-- because it was true. Perhaps the most common reason for people to lie is so that they won't look bad, or to hide something that they know that other people would frown on. You panicked when confronted by a reporter. I believe that you haven't given details about that "first" book and your daughter because you at least have the decency to not repeat the lie time and time again. And the more times you tell it, and the more detailed it gets, it's hard to keep yuour stories in line.
I am glad to see the citizens of West Bend waking up. Even though this blog is moderated, the comments negative to Ginny's movement have been outnumbering the favorable ones by a factor of many times. And most comments supportive of your position have been posted by you. Aren't you getting lonely? Has even Dan Kleinman abandoned you? Has the parade passed you by? West Bend will not be manipulated or bullied by followers of extremist web sites. We are a community of good decent values, imbued with common sense, and caring about our children-- and our freedoms.
FYI...paragraphs are a good thing. That last post was over done.
Doesn't matter how it started the fact still remains that the YA Zone librarian promoted obscene materials on the website geared for minor children 11-17.
Fact still remains that the library and the mayor refuse to give the community and parents a choice in how they want their library to run.
Fact still remains that no one here wants to ban or burn books. Just move them to where children with permission from their parents are allowed to get them.
Fact still remains that the city of West Bend refuses to comply with an ORR. Could there be something to hide?
You know, I'm beginning to really see the logic behind this idea of "reconsent." I really would be the best of both worlds: the books would still be available to the children of parents that don't have a problem with them reading objectionable material and they would be off limits to the children of parents who don't want their kids to read such stuff.
But handpicking books seems to present some logistical concerns as it would require a lot of work to go through each and every book in the library and a review committee would have to be set up to analyze any new book that came in. Sure, it could be possible to simply rely on conservative websites who are willing to sift through the great number of Young Adults' and Children's books that come out every year, but there could be an issue with bias. After all, librarians currently rely on trade magazines to purchase material and recommend it to patrons and we all know where that's gotten us.
It is difficult to really tell what is and is not objectionable as this depends on specific family's culture and upbringing. Alice and Wonderland has been banned because of anthropomorphization; admittedly not a concern for most parents, but it certainly could be an issue for some. Having been raised Catholic, I find the anti-papal message of Pilgrim's Progress to be rather offensive. And there are certainly those who find the use of the "n" word in Huckleberry Finn to be highly inappropriate (this is not to mention the unnecessarily rebellious nature of Twain's Tom Sawyer).
To cover all of these possible issues, it would probably just be better to recategorize every Children's and Young Adults' book, past, present and future, into a special restricted area that can parents could "reconsent" to have their children access. That way we can stop children from accessing anything that might destroy their delicate sensibilities.
What do you guys think about that?
I think you are missing the point of that editorial.
Once you start restricting books based on objectionable content, where do you draw the line?
Anyone can grab a book and pull sections out of context and declare that the book has no value or that the book is unfit for teenagers. On your own blog, the excerpts provided of the three books you object to are pretty much useless, since in some cases the excerpts from some pages don't even amount to one complete sentence.
It isn't about mocking Christians, and it isn't about seriously trying to ban the Bible. Rather, it's making the point that perhaps you too value a book that others might find objectionable.
If you can restrict books that you find objectionable, than what is stopping others from doing the same?
(My apologies, this is a continuation of the comment right above this one)
Also, the whole concept of 'like it or leave it' is pretty troubling. One of the beautiful things about living in the United States is that people are free to disagree. People are free to dissent. People are free to express ideas that may not be popular. They are able to do this without being forced to 'leave it' for fear of persecution or prosecution.
Once you open the floodgates, all sorts of books can be 'restricted.' I, for one, do not want my child reading a book about creationism. Should that be flagged?
Many people object to witchcraft in books. The Chronicles of Narnia used to frequently be challenged because they contained magic and witchcraft. And we all know how controversial Harry Potter is in some circles. So do those get flagged, too?
I am a Quaker, and I have far more problems with violence than with sex (considering that one is always wrong, and the other is how life begins). So can I have all books with violent content flagged, as well?
If you remove all books that might offend someone, you end up with a dreadfully boring collection.
Also, I know these books, and I don't really see why there's a problem with kids accessing them without their parents. Some things are a bit embarrassing, and kids might want to find information on their own. If not books like these, they are just going to ask older siblings and friends, and get MUCH worse information then they will get from these books, believe me.
Also, I don't think you can really make the argument that they are 'obscene' if you think it is fine for kids to look at them with their parents.
And have you seen the pictures that Ginny calls porn? Look for yourself! http://www.myppmc.com/Books%20-%20Pornogrphic%20Sch.%20Library%20Pictures.htm
Really?? Porn? You gotta be kidding me, you'll see more than that in a typical art museum.
Oh dear, I have let the cat out of the bag. Please don't let Ginny know that there are naked people in classical art! She'll be walling off the Raphaels and Michelangelos next. Just think of the children!! They might find out that men have penises!
"Fact still remains that the library and the mayor refuse to give the community and parents a choice in how they want their library to run.
Fact still remains that no one here wants to ban or burn books. Just move them to where children with permission from their parents are allowed to get them."
THIS MAKES NO SENSE. The library gives the ultimate right to the parent to decide what their children may check out. Wherever the items are shelved, parents can give permission to check them out.
"Fact still remains that the library and the mayor refuse to give the community and parents a choice in how they want their library to run."
This also makes no sense since the the community has had significant input, despite the mayor's or library's wishes, in kicking off 4 sitting library board members and appointed 4 new ones.
But guess what, Ms. Maziarka, your wishes still weren't granted. That should indicate something to you....
People-
I can see why the pro library people are getting so frustrated. ALL the YA books are either in the YA section of the library or already in the adult section. Althouigh at the June 2 meeting you were shown diagrams and videos of the library arrangement-- you still say the books should be moved. They are NOT in the children's section. They are in the YA section which is located in a little used back hallway behind the circulation desk office. There may be no walls between it and the children's section, but the whole library is an open concept with the only rooms being walled off are office or small meeting or study rooms. Oh, and all YA non-fiction books are already shelved in the adult section and are marked YA. Close up photos were taken and shown at the June 2 meeting. But perhaps you think this is a recent change. The YA non-fiction has been shelved in the adult section only since 1969. I guess that makes it a relatively recent forty years ago.
How do you want them marked? As pornography, or obscenity, or filth? What standards do you use? No one knows. Who decides the standards? Ginny Maziarka?? You constantly and consistently distort the legal definitions of obscenity. You ignore the legislators statements found in the statute itself that says the law is NOT intended to attack works with literary, scientific, educational, or artistic value. You have consistently ignored and avoided that issue. Do you have anybody on your side that a court would recognize as being qualified to answer that question. There are many, many professors, publishers, writers in legitimate book review sources, -- and thousands of librarians with Masters degrees in this professional field who would be recognized as an expert here. Read the Sund case to see an example. There are hundreds of people with Ph.D.s who would vouch for these books, including professors of children's and young adult lit.
Mark Peterson? Did he take random quotes from the Bible and take them out of context? Did he not consider the general theme and approach of the Bible and what it's dominant theme was? Did he not consider the fact that most people look at the Bible as having serious literary (and religious) value? Did he not address whether the Bible is found in most libraries in this country? You really didn't get his point, did you. All he did was make a mockery-- not of the Bible-- but of your use of these very same underhanded and distorting tactics.
Try being a little calm. Tone down your outrageous language. Make your words match your stated aims-- because now they certainly don't. Define your terms. Challenge at least one book like you said you would. Follow the procedures that everyone else has to follow. Play fair. Don't cheat or make up your own rules and terms. Be a responsible citizen. Or shut up.
Here is the article that I am refering to when I say the library has made some changes due to the complaint:
West Bend News Saturday July 18th paper. Written by Dwayne Butler.
The headline is Library fight far from over. To the right of the headline is the byline:
Library has made changes Here is what is says:
The West Bend Community Memorial Library has taken two steps in light of Jim and Ginnny Maziarka's original complaint filed in February.
The link to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender fiction and nonfiction titles on the library's young adult Web page is not known as "Over the Rainbow." This was in response to the Maziarkas' suggestion that the title "Out of the closet,"be removed, according to Library Director Michael Tyree.
In response to the Maziarkas' request for the library to house a list of titles that would counter the pro-gay agenda, the ;library has ordered a portion of the titles that were submitted. The titles were researched by the library staff through the Americans for Truth About Homosexuality Web site (http://americansfortruth.com) which is in partnership with Parents and Friends of Ex-gats and Gays (PFOX). The books are coming from the publisher Harvest House.
According to the company's Web site,their collection of books are Christian - based and geared to meeting consumers' needs in self - help, Bible help and full-color gift books featuring name brand artists.
I find your entire site, and your blind, narrow minded crusade to be not only an outrageous affront to the spirit of this nation's protected right to free speech, and the free consumption of speech, but a tragic endorsement of parental failing. It it YOUR responsibility to monitor your children's reading, and ensure that it falls within the boundaries you find appropriate. However, not everyone agrees with your (what I find to be vary narrow and prejudiced) ideas on what is appropriate.
In terms of sexuality, information is the best protection. This has been overwhelmingly shown to be the case, and has been proven by the dismal failure of 'abstinence-only' sex-ed programs which do not include factual information (or include misinformation). I can only hope that wiser heads than yours, and those of your frothing devotees prevail. Do we really need another dark ages, after all?
And further, perhaps if you actually *read* that book you are so fond of relying upon, (the one cobbled together by ancient goat-herders about the tribal god of their sacrifical cult), you would see that it does, indeed, contain all the violence, murder, genocide, rape and abuse Peterson refers to. But that might require you to refer to facts, not 'faith,' something with which I suspect you are not only uncomfortable, but of which you are not capable.
Rolf- If I'm not mistaken I believe the YA Zone is geared for children 11-17. To men, that translates and children. Also, many children who are good readers read up, so they too may have access to these books.
Kristina- glad to hear the library is taking some action.
MLIS - what I mean by the community deciding is to decide what the term "obscene" means.
Rev. from GA- You of all people should know not to blame Ginny for the actions of someone else. That's like holding you accountable for what the WB Library does. As a Rev. I would hope you'd have more sense to judge others before you've had the opportunity to personally speak to them.
After reading all the comments here, I have to wonder who really are the haters? Many of you are just spewing hate and not really helping your own cause. It's a shame really.
Correction to above - not 'men', me.
Post a Comment