In Georgia, a bill to cut all ties with the American Library Association is advancing

[Fuzzy1975]

Nobody including myself is saying that anybody who doesn't like the content of a book should just have it banned

What? How about explaining this in the context of what you wrote earlier. I've posted those quotes to refresh your memory.
I've even bolded your double speak

But who trains them? Liberal elitist universities who think because they are self-described elite that now they know better than parents and families and moms and dads that want to make sure they have control of what their children are exposed to?

Are those who believe that children belong to society in general... Meaning because you can't have a general ownership in society... That they belong to the government to train them to be nice little citizens of the state... And who believe that the children do not belong to the parents to train and nurture as they see fit... Are these the people that are supposed to be educating the librarians who then provide the information that a child is exposed to?

I Have a huge problem with that.

Give parents control of the content of libraries. Parents control of the content of schools. Give parents control of the content of what their child is exposed to. The school's only job is to provide Reading, writing and arithmetic and basic skills for life in education... Not to socially engineer children one way or another. And the library's job is to provide resources that are accurate to those goals. If the people in Georgia feel like what they need their children exposed to is what they're putting in that bill, so be it. I'm not going to Have an issue with that because I put heavier weight on parental rights then I do librarian or teacher rights.

The content of a library should be the least offensive to the public. Which means you don't tell the people who don't want their kids to have access to it well then don't go to the library. Their tax dollars are paying for it. You tell the people who want the content that is offensive to enough people where they don't want it there, get those resources on your own. They're not hard to get. And the person who wants their kids to have access to those resources still has access to the library for the other books that all the parents want to have their kids have access to. You got it backwards. If the tax dollars are paying for the library then you shouldn't have the content foisted on that taxpayers family that they don't want their children to have access to or be exposed to. If you want your child to have that exposure then you have easy access through the internet and your smartphone and your tablet and all kinds of other stuff to get those books for free even.

 

[PaxNurgle]

Our local school board was just taken over by a group of right-wing zealots who are now trying to get books like To Kill a Mockingbird banned from the libraries as they cast white racists in a bad light.

PERFECT example of what I am talking about.

 

[ByteMe13]

Nobody including myself is saying that anybody who doesn't like the content of a book should just have it banned. What conservatives are saying is that there used to be at least some standard of decency when it came to what people were given access to with government dollars in public forums. I can't get by with showing the latest porn flick on a big screen at a showing in the public library.

That's an extreme example, but there are smaller scale issues. There are children's books so-called that are delving into sexual issues that they have no business getting into. There are books that are geared to teach children that same-sex marriage or that other things like that are healthy and good and wonderful. Problem is that that violates the values and morals of a good portion of the society that's paying the taxes on that library. There are books that are being put in place that are teaching children that America is nothing but a racist horrible place that needs to be put in its place. That is offensive and problematic to much of the country. As was mentioned earlier by someone else, The library association is run by a group of people who have some very perverse values that violate what parents rights should dictate. That's why this bill is being put through. If you want that content, go get it yourself and make it available to your own children. It should not be put in a place where people who don't want their children to have access to these things can access it. Parents own their children, not society.

Parents don’t “own” their children. If they did, they could sell them, abuse them, neglect them as they see fit.

 

[JaySecrets]

Parents don’t “own” their children. If they did, they could sell them, abuse them, neglect them as they see fit.

You apparently have very little understanding or respect for the love of parent has for a child. There are laws in place against parental abuse like you state. That is morally evil. That is objectively morally evil and people go to prison for that. But the children do belong to the parents until they become old enough to have their autonomy. They do not belong to society. Not belong to the schools. Not belong to the government. Most parents love their children and will do what they believe is best to protect them and to raise them and to train them in the way they see as right and good. For you to say what you just did shows that you have little respect for parents and parental rights. To say what you just did shows that you in fact are a totalitarian and a socialist... And have far more in common with the very Nazis that you claim Trump is associated with than any conservative ever has. Study history.

 

[butters]

Parents don’t “own” their children. If they did, they could sell them, abuse them, neglect them as they see fit.

indeed

children are not 'property'

parents are guardians, caregivers, loving family, protectors, those responsible for the children, but NOT—not EVER—OWNERS. A court has the right (and duty in specific instances) to remove children from their parents.

the very fact 'ownership' is even used as a label here speaks to jaysecrets' outlook on life—formed by religious views he's entirely entitled to hold. perhaps he feels he 'owns' his wife, too, or does ownership only apply to minors?

 

[butters]

You apparently have very little understanding or respect for the love of parent has for a child. There are laws in place against parental abuse like you state. That is morally evil. That is objectively morally evil and people go to prison for that. But the children do belong to the parents until they become old enough to have their autonomy. They do not belong to society. Not belong to the schools. Not belong to the government. Most parents love their children and will do what they believe is best to protect them and to raise them and to train them in the way they see as right and good. For you to say what you just did shows that you have little respect for parents and parental rights. To say what you just did shows that you in fact are a totalitarian and a socialist... And have far more in common with the very Nazis that you claim Trump is associated with than any conservative ever has. Study history.

it's because i loved my (now adult) children that i never, not even once, felt they were 'property'. I do not nor have ever 'owned' my children. Nor does society, government, school or churches, certainly not a construct invented to appease a scared, uneducated population. They are autonomous, and belong only to themselves.

 

[JaySecrets]

indeed

children are not 'property'

parents are guardians, caregivers, loving family, protectors, those responsible for the children, but NOT—not EVER—OWNERS. A court has the right (and duty in specific instances) to remove children from their parents.

the very fact 'ownership' is even used as a label here speaks to jaysecrets' outlook on life—formed by religious views he's entirely entitled to hold. perhaps he feels he 'owns' his wife, too, or does ownership only apply to minors?

So when your kids don't want to do chores, you have no say because you don't own them? If they just scream "fuck you" and walk away you have to just accept it as self expression you have no say over?

You are off your rocker if you think kids don't belong to their parents. And you are one step away from Natzi Germany and Stalin's Russia.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

You apparently have very little understanding or respect for the love of parent has for a child. There are laws in place against parental abuse like you state. That is morally evil. That is objectively morally evil and people go to prison for that. But the children do belong to the parents until they become old enough to have their autonomy. They do not belong to society. Not belong to the schools. Not belong to the government. Most parents love their children and will do what they believe is best to protect them and to raise them and to train them in the way they see as right and good. For you to say what you just did shows that you have little respect for parents and parental rights. To say what you just did shows that you in fact are a totalitarian and a socialist... And have far more in common with the very Nazis that you claim Trump is associated with than any conservative ever has. Study history.

I don’t trust Christians around children. There have been too many sexual abuse scandals connected to priests and pastors. They are also particularly cruel to any youngsters who question their dogma.

 

[JaySecrets]

I don’t trust Christians around children. There have been too many sexual abuse scandals connected to priests and pastors. They are also particularly cruel to any youngsters who reject their dogma.

Have you ever researched and seen the comparison of the number of claimed (not real Christians as defined by Scripture, by the way) Christians as opposed to non Christians found to be abusing children? The non Christians are far more in number. But you see things through your lense of bias and ignore facts.

 

[butters]

So when your kids don't want to do chores, you have no say because you don't own them? If they just scream "fuck you" and walk away you have to just accept it as self expression you have no say over?

You are off your rocker if you think kids don't belong to their parents. And you are one step away from Natzi Germany and Stalin's Russia.

past tense, since they are now aging adults.

of course i had a say, but that had zero to do with my 'owning' them. My kids never ever screamed 'fuck you' at me or just walked away. And that includes even my autistic middle child. Being brought up with some kind of morality, duty, as a part of a family, knowing their responsibilities and my understanding of what was and was not suitable to ask of them, meant they didn't behave that way. If you imagine denying self-expression is healthy, you're the nazi-leaner, not i.

my youngest is trans, and now in her mid twenties. Although she decided (for all manner of reasons showing her consideration, practicality and thoughtfulness) not to begin the whole trans process till she was 18, she'd known most her life that her body didn't match who she was. If she had decided to declare earlier, i most certainly would have supported her dressing and living her life as a girl/woman... her self-expression belongs to her, not to me.

 

[ByteMe13]

You apparently have very little understanding or respect for the love of parent has for a child. There are laws in place against parental abuse like you state. That is morally evil. That is objectively morally evil and people go to prison for that. But the children do belong to the parents until they become old enough to have their autonomy. They do not belong to society. Not belong to the schools. Not belong to the government. Most parents love their children and will do what they believe is best to protect them and to raise them and to train them in the way they see as right and good. For you to say what you just did shows that you have little respect for parents and parental rights. To say what you just did shows that you in fact are a totalitarian and a socialist... And have far more in common with the very Nazis that you claim Trump is associated with than any conservative ever has. Study history.

The only people who think children or other human beings can be owned are human traffickers and leaders of whacked-out fundamentalist religious cults. Which category do you fit in? Or are you just some fat, pimple-faced troll living in momma’s basement?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

The only people who think children or other human beings can be owned are human traffickers and leaders of whacked-out fundamentalist religious cults. Which category do you fit in? Or are you just some fat, pimple-faced troll living in momma’s basement?

Technically his mom owns him, so he can’t leave until he has her permission.

 

[ll74]

So when your kids don't want to do chores, you have no say because you don't own them? If they just scream "fuck you" and walk away you have to just accept it as self expression you have no say over?

You are off your rocker if you think kids don't belong to their parents. And you are one step away from Natzi Germany and Stalin's Russia.

So you don't understand parenting?

 

[JaySecrets]

So you don't understand parenting?

I understand parenting which is exactly why I say the children belong to the parents until they are of age. That by the way is a historically accurate description. A child does not know enough to know how to protect him or herself. Child does not know or understand enough to know what to believe or not to believe. Child is still forming his understanding or her understanding of the world and of morals and of values. It is the parents role to instill the values that they see as proper and good to make that child the person that they believe that child should be. Is The parents role to instill the discipline. It is The parents role create an environment where the child is fully accountable to those parents as they teach that child responsibility and values and morals and discipline. Society doesn't do this. The parents do. Teachers don't do this. The parents do. Government doesn't do this. The parents do. That child belongs to and is the responsibility of those parents until that child becomes of age where that child can act responsibly and autonomously for him or herself. That belonging to is not a thing of cruelty. It's a thing of love. A wife belongs to her husband and her husband belongs to her. If another person enters into that circle... Look out. There's betrayal. There is hurt. Betrayal and hurt is because an agreement was violated that they belong to one another. That child is an an outgrowth of that relationship between the mom and the dad and the child belongs to those parents to raise and train. That's parenting. You don't believe that then you in fact don't understand parenting and if you have kids you are probably the reason why so many children today are wilding out and acting the fool. If you don't believe that, that means you aren't disciplining and rearing and training your children in the way they should go. You're just letting them go their own way. And that will always be a path of destruction because they don't know.

 

[ll74]

I understand parenting which is exactly why I say the children belong to the parents until they are of age. That by the way is a historically accurate description. A child does not know enough to know how to protect him or herself. Child does not know or understand enough to know what to believe or not to believe. Child is still forming his understanding or her understanding of the world and of morals and of values. It is the parents role to instill the values that they see as proper and good to make that child the person that they believe that child should be. Is The parents role to instill the discipline. It is The parents role create an environment where the child is fully accountable to those parents as they teach that child responsibility and values and morals and discipline. Society doesn't do this. The parents do. Teachers don't do this. The parents do. Government doesn't do this. The parents do. That child belongs to and is the responsibility of those parents until that child becomes of age where that child can act responsibly and autonomously for him or herself. That belonging to is not a thing of cruelty. It's a thing of love. A wife belongs to her husband and her husband belongs to her. If another person enters into that circle... Look out. There's betrayal. There is hurt. Betrayal and hurt is because an agreement was violated that they belong to one another. That child is an an outgrowth of that relationship between the mom and the dad and the child belongs to those parents to raise and train. That's parenting. You don't believe that then you in fact don't understand parenting and if you have kids you are probably the reason why so many children today are wilding out and acting the fool. If you don't believe that, that means you aren't disciplining and rearing and training your children in the way they should go. You're just letting them go their own way. And that will always be a path of destruction because they don't know.

That's a lot of words to agree with me.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

The non Christians are far more in number. But you see things through your lense of bias and ignore facts.

Again, here you are with a statement with nothing to back it up. A quick search on google shows dozens of articles showing the exact opposite of what you just claimed.

Just one of dozens and dozens....https://religion.culture.narkive.com/CEtesMGg/are-christian-parents-more-prone-to-child-abuse-than-atheist-parents

Get with the program Fisher. Claims need citations, or they are just opinion, and you know the old saying about opinions. The're just like assholes, everyone has one.

 

[Handeguy]

If the presence of a book is problematic to the parents of children who don't want their children exposed to that book, it is the parent's right to have that book not in the public library.

No, I'm sorry. It is not. It simply is not the right of those parents to bar the children of other people from accessing that book in their school library. Don't want your kid checking out a certain title? Simply communicate with the school librarian and your kids' teacher(s). Maybe you are familiar with the bumper sticker that says, "Don't like guns? Don't buy one. See? Wasn't that simple?" Same logic applies here. You have the right to make the choices for your children, but not for everybody else's children. As an aside, you may want to spend some time monitoring what your kid accesses on their cell phone. I guarantee that they're spending as much time (or more) on that material than they are on anything they can find in the schoool library.

 

[RobDownSouth]

No, I'm sorry. It is not. It simply is not the right of those parents to bar the children of other people from accessing that book in their school library. Don't want your kid checking out a certain title? Simply communicate with the school librarian and your kids' teacher(s). Maybe you are familiar with the bumper sticker that says, "Don't like guns? Don't buy one. See? Wasn't that simple?" Same logic applies here. You have the right to make the choices for your children, but not for everybody else's children. As an aside, you may want to spend some time monitoring what your kid accesses on their cell phone. I guarantee that they're spending as much time (or more) on that material than they are on anything they can find in the schoool library.

Even eager book-burners such as diminutive Florida governor Ron DeSantis has come around to the thinking that perhaps books are a little TOO easy to ban, and reflect poorly on the Republican party as a whole.

DeSantis suggested a nominal fee be charged to formally challenge a book in the Florida public school system. He proposed this after it was discovered that Florida by far led the nation in book burning challenges in 2023, with over 1100 challenges, many more than the next biggest state. Of these 1100 challenges, over 500 were made by exactly two parents at opposite ends of the state....and....PLOT TWIST! Both of these book burners did NOT have children in the public school system, they were homeskooling their children.

"I don't like this book, so YOU shouldn't read it or have access to it!"

 

[Handeguy]

DeSantis suggested a nominal fee be charged to formally challenge a book in the Florida public school system. He proposed this after it was discovered that Florida by far led the nation in book burning challenges in 2023, with over 1100 challenges, many more than the next biggest state. Of these 1100 challenges, over 500 were made by exactly two parents at opposite ends of the state....and....PLOT TWIST! Both of these book burners did NOT have children in the public school system, they were homeskooling their children.

If only certain segments of the population were as passionate about numeracy and literacy and encouraging their kids to look up from their phones every so often in class as they are about fighting imaginary bogeymen hiding in books 99% of those kids will never read anyway, we would have the most capable student body in the world.

 

[JaySecrets]

No, I'm sorry. It is not. It simply is not the right of those parents to bar the children of other people from accessing that book in their school library. Don't want your kid checking out a certain title? Simply communicate with the school librarian and your kids' teacher(s). Maybe you are familiar with the bumper sticker that says, "Don't like guns? Don't buy one. See? Wasn't that simple?" Same logic applies here. You have the right to make the choices for your children, but not for everybody else's children. As an aside, you may want to spend some time monitoring what your kid accesses on their cell phone. I guarantee that they're spending as much time (or more) on that material than they are on anything they can find in the schoool library.

We're just going to go round and round on this one because the fact is each of us sees the other one as getting it absolutely bass ackward. I wish that you could try to see the opposing view and see it reasonably so you could understand why paranormal rights and parental control over what their children are exposed to is important. But either you don't have kids, or you don't respect the beliefs of other parents with their kids enough to be willing to say that if my child is one I want exposed to Timmy has two mommies or Jenny has two daddies, that I will buy the book myself and not expect that parent to have their child exposed to it. It's about caring more about the other person than you and understanding that they care more about the protecting of their child and their child's values and morals than they are concerned about your sensibilities about why some book that doesn't need to be in the library in order for you to have access to it should be there.

But like I said, we're just going to go round and round on this and you can't hear a word. I'm saying because you're so filled with your idea that the child belongs to society not to the parents. So I am going to cease responding to this. You already know I hold that parental rights trump everything.

 

[BlueEyes1969]

This isn't Nazi Germany of the 1930s . . .or is it? Banning books and controlling what is available to read is dangerous.

 

[JaySecrets]

This isn't Nazi Germany of the 1930s . . .or is it? Banning books and controlling what is available to read is dangerous.

If we were talking about books that opposed the views of the state, I would agree. If we were talking about books that presented religious views that some would disagree with, I would agree. But even that is prefaced in that in Germany, the libraries or the public sources of books were the only places you could get some of these books. In today's world they are so available that if we were to shut down every library you could still access every book out there. No one is saying to cut that access out.

What they are saying is that when things are morally offensive to enough of the community those things should not be placed where they can be easily put into the hands of children whose parents do not want them exposed to those things they consider morally offensive. Again, if you want your children to have access to LBGT material or if you want your children to be exposed to pro-abortion material (really not sure why anyone would want that) or if you want your children exposed to things that have graphic sexual content (again, I'm not sure why you would do that) or if you want your children exposed to things that present an anti-American point of view that says that America is just a horrible place that is nothing but racist and nasty and deserves to be destroyed.... You can go out and get those resources and make them available to your children in your home. You can even go out and create a private library of these resources, pool together with others of like mind and do the same thing and then make it available to all your kids a more affordable rate. And nobody is going to stop you or say you can't. But when it's public tax dollars in play, there's a library association that has openly spoken against parental rights and traditional values. When it's a library system who is having drag shows for children when that child is just figuring out what life is about and doesn't need to be exposed to these conversations about sexuality. When it's them absolutely the parents have the right and should have the right to cut off those libraries from doing those things and making those things available. It's their children, not the libraries or the states or the teachers or anybody else. I know I'm redundant on this but it bears repeating again and again and again... It's about parental rights because those children belong to them. Period. Full stop.

 

[goldytheGoldfish]

Why don't they have a rating system for books like they do for movies?

 

[ll74]

If we were talking about books that opposed the views of the state, I would agree. If we were talking about books that presented religious views that some would disagree with, I would agree. But even that is prefaced in that in Germany, the libraries or the public sources of books were the only places you could get some of these books. In today's world they are so available that if we were to shut down every library you could still access every book out there. No one is saying to cut that access out.

What they are saying is that when things are morally offensive to enough of the community those things should not be placed where they can be easily put into the hands of children whose parents do not want them exposed to those things they consider morally offensive. Again, if you want your children to have access to LBGT material or if you want your children to be exposed to pro-abortion material (really not sure why anyone would want that) or if you want your children exposed to things that have graphic sexual content (again, I'm not sure why you would do that) or if you want your children exposed to things that present an anti-American point of view that says that America is just a horrible place that is nothing but racist and nasty and deserves to be destroyed.... You can go out and get those resources and make them available to your children in your home. You can even go out and create a private library of these resources, pool together with others of like mind and do the same thing and then make it available to all your kids a more affordable rate. And nobody is going to stop you or say you can't. But when it's public tax dollars in play, there's a library association that has openly spoken against parental rights and traditional values. When it's a library system who is having drag shows for children when that child is just figuring out what life is about and doesn't need to be exposed to these conversations about sexuality. When it's them absolutely the parents have the right and should have the right to cut off those libraries from doing those things and making those things available. It's their children, not the libraries or the states or the teachers or anybody else. I know I'm redundant on this but it bears repeating again and again and again... It's about parental rights because those children belong to them. Period. Full stop.

Don't want your kid to read bad things, then parent them. You can easily monitor what books they check out.

 

[JaySecrets]

Why don't they have a rating system for books like they do for movies?

Most certainly they have a rating system... But haven't you been a kid or a teenager... did that rating system ever stop you from seeing a movie that you wanted to see? Of course not. If it was made publicly available, you were going to find a way to see what you wanted to see.

When you have a library association that is perfectly happy to go behind the parents back and make books available and resources available to children that the parents do not want their children exposed to.... And at library association has in fact been willing to do that in spades.... That library association should be cut off. When librarians or teachers come to the point of arrogance that they think they know more about what a child should be exposed to and be taught than the parents themselves, those librarians and teachers need to go.