Book Banning And The Blatant Hypocrisy Of The ACLU (Or ACL-SCREW-U)
Some types of books ought to banned from public libraries. From public school libraries, without question, some types of books ought to be banned. Books that are filled with obscenities, drug references and graphic sexual content, about children, meant and written for children – by adults. Just as when a teacher betrays the relationship between themselves and their pupils by irresponsibly teaching “safe” sex over abstinence only, so too do they, adults/teachers, betray school children (teens and young adults included) when they place on a library shelf books that are unquestionably questionable.
In Missouri, such a book has been banned. It is called “Hold Still”, and it deals with how a girl copes with the suicide of her best friend. This in itself is not the reason why the book was removed. And if this was all the book was about; if “coping” was all that was at issue, then the book would not have outraged the parents of their fourteen year old daughter who read it. Included are “graphic sex scenes” and what the child’s mother describes as “F-you’s riddled throughout”.
The girl’s father had no problem with the theme of suicide, and how the character dealt with the death of her best friend. Said the father:
The message is about suicide, and I had no problem with that. But if you had the best message in the world put in ‘Playboy,’ you would never get to that message. We felt like it was a questionable book for our daughter.”
Books like “Hold Still” are published every year. Ans it must be said that the authors of these books have a hidden agenda when it comes to writing them. They know that what they write, the drug references, the graphic sex scenes, the obscenities sells! Kids, especially those in the throngs of puberty love to get their hands on such material. Remember when we were kids? We hunted for it too. It is no different with children today. What is different is that the material is becoming more obscene and more prevalent and widespread within public schools and public libraries. And it is being protected and guarded by groups that would seek to undermine a parents authority over their own children. Groups like the ACLU.
Said the ACLU of this controversy:
You clearly can’t remove a book because you disagree with the ideas in them,’ said Doug Bonney, chief counsel and legal director for the local chapter of the ACLU. ‘Clearly, I‘m concerned when a school removes a book that was chosen by the professional library staff for inclusion in the collection and then on the complaint of one family decides to remove the book while it’s being reviewed.’
Indeed. Here you have, in the ACLU, a legal firm whose only real motivation and desire has always been to remove every vestige of Christianity from every corner of America – by legal force if necessary, if Christians won’t “voluntarily” remove themselves and their religious message. And the ACLU, in the case of “Hold Still” is concerned that “on the complaint of one family” in Missouri a book is removed.
The ACLU has moved in with great alacrity and feverish alarm. The audacity that one set of parents would have to want to protect their child from what is essentially garbage, and written by its author to be garbage and nonetheless forced done the throats of children as propaganda. Why couldn’t this author simply write a story about one friend dealing with the suicide of another friend? It’s real. It happens every day in America. Children ought to have a place to turn to when they need to cope with these issues. Books can do that. “Hold Still” could have done that. But not when it is laced and poisoned with obscenities and graphic sex scenes.
What is provocative about the position of the ACLU is their “concern” that on the behest of but a single family, two parents, a book was removed. And although it was not banned entirely, still the ACLU is devilishly worried.
Yet – when it is one atheist complaining about a cross on a water tower, then the ACLU says an entire town must respect the wishes of that one, single, solitary individual atheist. This is where that blatant ACLU hypocrisy enters. The ACLU says that in cases of religion, where but a lone atheist demands a religious symbol be removed from public view, on public land, the wishes of the lone atheist, in the spirit of “separation of church and state” must be granted.
However, the ACLU says, as it has said in this Missouri incident, that if a single family, two parents (one more person than the lone atheist) deem a book too graphic for their child to read, and ask it be removed from the curriculum, this, so says the ACLU, is an infraction on the first amendment right of freedom of speech.
Says the Missouri Association of School Librarians in a statement defending “Hold Still”:
It’s a well-written story about a young adult finding hope despite trying circumstances.
Again, more adults betraying their relationship with children, advocating, encouraging, promoting books that contain drug references, graphic sex and obscenities as a “well written story”. Is it any wonder that more and more children give in to the peer pressure of sex and drugs while still in their teens when they read it in the books their own bloody, worthless excuses for teachers are making them read, or making it easy for them to obtain for reading?
What has the author of this garbage said about her work, and the libraries response?
The more time I get to spend in this glorious and frustrating pursuit of writing novels, the more I appreciate the librarians and teachers who care enough for their students to seek out and provide books that will speak to them.
“Libraries and teachers who care enough for their students” to force feed them trash. To put in their laps books that, for all practical purposes, are propaganda. What kind of teacher “cares” about their students who is willing to place in the hands of a mind not yet fully developed, where puberty and hormonal changes are causing all kinds of emotions to rage within that child, literature that only damages their psyche?
The author of “Hold Still” ought to spend less of her time “in this glorious and frustrating pursuit of writing novels” and more time examining all the damage she is causing to the minds of those children who are reading her books. And she ought to be asked to explain what the point was in adding the obscenities, and graphic sex scenes. What the hell does that have to do with telling a story about coping with the death of a friend who committed suicide?
Just as crosses on water towers ought not be removed, or any religious symbols, because of one lone, pathetic atheist with nothing better to do, complaining it infringes upon his or her non belief, neither ought a book be banned from a public school or public library because it is of a questionable nature to one person or one family. While they certainly have the right to protect their own children, they cannot protect, or speak on behalf of all the children. And if the other families accept their own children reading books containing heavy obscenities and graphic sex scenes, then so be it.
However, this is a perfect opportunity for the community in this school district, and in communities all across America, to come together and decide for themselves what books ought to be allowed in their public facilities, which their taxes are supporting. If a majority of the community wants books such as “Hold Still” to remain in their schools and libraries, that is their right. But, if a community, by in large, opposes such literature, then that also must be honored.
And it goes without saying that the ACLU, in all its hypocrisy, will be right there to sue the school or the library if such a move by any community to remove a book was pursued and enacted. Just as when a community, by in large, would show its support for placing the Ten Commandments in its public schools, the ACLU will be there to stop them. But dare one atheist’s wishes for a cross not be respected – well, the ACLU will be there as well, to sue on their behalf.
If that is not blatant hypocrisy, what is?