Banished from a public library?

[Petrel]

Originally posted by HankD:
True, I have a double standard in this matter, pornography should be illegal but not the graphic pictures of murdered babies. So be it.

In my view I have not only the right but the duty to expose sin for what it is no matter how ugly or gruesome it is.

. . .

In addition, God does not agree with you in that He has seen to it that his Word speaks often about such things as His retribution and the awfulness of hell.

According to your philosophy children shoudn't be allowed to read the Bible because such things might also cause them nightmares.

If you have a double standard, you need to make sure that it is sensible.

First of all, the Bible is written words, and it is quite different from pictures. Violent and sexual imagery have a much greater psychological impact than violent and sexual prose. Nevertheless, I think that children should have even their Bible reading guided by their parents. Would you let your children watch a violent and sexually charged movie? No? Then there's a lot of the Old Testament they shouldn't be reading until they have more discretion.

So you want to go about exposing sin for how ugly and gruesome it is. Fine. Do you show your children autopsy photographs? There are pathology textbooks that can provide you with plenty of photographs of all sorts of gruesome murders and mutilations. After all, murdering a child or adult is just as bad as murdering an unborn baby, so the same tactics should be applied to exposing how ugly and gruesome both types of murder are. Would you mind if I came by your child's classroom and showed them murder scene photos with the purpose of convincing them how evil murder is? If so, you're going against God.

Logically you should also obtain homosexual pornography to show your children how ugly homosexuality is--but then you've created this logically inconsistent divide whereby you can show children gruesome murder photographs, but not photographs of sexual acts.

The upshot of it is that you're using a means to fight abortion that is actually irrelevant to whether abortion is right or wrong, you're rationalizing it by creating an inconsistent double standard, and then you're taking a self-righteous tone with someone who objects to your subjecting their child to gory pictures without parental consent!

The fact is that most people are not going to be convinced that abortion is wrong by the use of photographs of an aborted baby. It's a sheerly emotionally based tactic. The more emotionally susceptible in your audience may be convinced (and the children may have nightmares for months ), but the rational will say, "So, it looks a bit like a baby, so what? Prove to me that it is a human. After all, even surgery to remove a tumor is gruesome. Your scare tactics don't impress me." In the end you gain nothing but their contempt.

Oh, by the way, why don't you go hit the playground with some BTK photos and see just how far your freedom of speech gets you.

I'd grab you for contributing to the delinquency of a minor and then go on from there.

 

[GrannyGumbo]

I find certain billboards offensive. I find vulgar rap artists on CD covers and disgraceful women on magazines at the check-out counter to be repulsive. I even find the way some so-called christians dress, or should I say, undress, to be ungodly. But no way do I find the pictures of the poor thrown away INNOCENT babies to be considered porno or obscene. These babies were violently pulled and twisted apart and discarded like a piece of garbage and may God have mercy on those who are guilty and those who would condone and/or continue to keep them hush-hush.

Saturday we had a man stop to thank us for being out there...he said he had a 13 yr old niece who just had an abortion and another a little older who's had several. He said how he wished they had seen our signs before killing their babies. He was happy to take our pamphlets.

We are as serious as the founding fathers in the 1700s about what we do...Give us liberty or give us death. We believe in preserving freedom. It was the American Revolution that was fought to preserve our God-given rights. That was the true great generation. They did not fight to preserve public education that would funded by socialistic programs.

It's our responsibility to preserve the teachings of Jesus Christ...which is what this country was founded upon. We will keep reminding America of it's heritage.

Yes, sadly to say, America is no longer a Christian nation. Luke 6:46 "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" It still claims to be a Christian nation...but it's actions are far from the teachings of Christ!

 

[webdog]

I even find the way some so-called christians dress, or should I say, undress, to be ungodly.

granny, the problem is, with quotes like this, I do not take seriously the rest of your post. You legalistically equate salvation with the way people dress. With your attitude, what good is "street ministry" if you take it upon yourself to judge everyone? Do you not talk to those filthy sodomite, baby murdering, sleazy dressing people on the street? I believe it was Jesus who said that the sick are the ones who need the doctor.

Brother Ed's quote couldn't be more true, and applies to you.

Unfortunately every time God 'calls'
a Christian to do a street ministry God has to call a dozen
other Christians to undo the damage.

 

[HankD]

If you have a double standard, you need to make sure that it is sensible.

It is to me and it is our duty to do those things we know to be good.

2 Corinthians 5
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

Some of what you say makes sense. I wouldn't show my children (of which we had 11 and they have all left the nest except one adult child) graphic illustrations of perversions but then again my double standard makes sense to me.

Actually it is not a double standard, it is a standard which has limitations which I have set according to what I believe is in accordance with the Word of God.

James 4
17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.


HankD

[ August 29, 2005, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[Aaron]

Hey, Poles!

Now that we know the ages of Granny's kids, 12 & 13, would you say that is too young an age to see pics of the Jewish Holocaust? Keep in mind that's middle school.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Aaron,

I would say it depends on their maturity. Some kids are pretty mature at 13, others not so much. Still, I would say that the more gruesome pics should probably wait. I also still abhor Granny's methods, regardless.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by GrannyGumbo:
God's people MUST put away their signs of MURDERED BABIES when some are offended?

I would say this is appropriate, if the local law qualifies it. If showing photos of dismembered adults qualifies as obscene, then so does the showing of photos of dismembered fetal remains. If we Christians are to expect the world to behave in a certain manner, then we Christians must act in like manner. Otherwise, our message is as empty as a clanging cymbal.

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
Aaron,

I would say it depends on their maturity. Some kids are pretty mature at 13, others not so much. Still, I would say that the more gruesome pics should probably wait. I also still abhor Granny's methods, regardless.

What if pascifism in America won out in the 40's and Hitler (or a successor) were still in power today and still committing grievous acts of genocide, and Granny and her kids were protesting America's pascifism in regard to the holocaust. Would you still consider her methods abhorent?

 

[HankD]

Johnv says:

Otherwise, our message is as empty as a clanging cymbal.

Only if it is without love.

HankD

 

[JohnDeereFan]

"Banishment" from a Public Library?


I recently received a letter from a local Public Library that was not unexpected. Over the years I have sought to educate the public with regard to the murder of the preborn. Public libraries are a great place to disperse information.

In most Public Libraries you can find books with graphic nudity, perversion, introductions to the sodomite lifestyle and the like. The American Library Association will let most anything pass as "good literature" and they raise their voice against "censorship" if ever a "prudish" individual questions a selection in the collection of literature on their shelves.

The ALA opposes any restrictions on access to pornography in public libraries--even for children.

Here is the the letter I received.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Green:

On Friday, August 12th, a library staff member observed you inserting anti-abortion cards in several books in the Young Adult section of the Powhatan County Public Library. These cards have also been found throughout the Adult collection, the Front Display Case, the Meeting Room hallway and the Men's bathroom.

Library policy forbids soliciting, campaigning and petitioning in the Library and in and around Library entryways. Furthermore, materials placed in public display areas must be suitable for viewing by all ages. No materials may be distributed to the public without the Library Director's approval.

Failure to comply with library policies will result in banishment from the Powhatan County Public Library.

Sincerely,
Kim Armentrout
Library Director
------------------------------------------------------------------

I must say that this is the first threat of banishment I have ever received. I wonder if I had brought pornography into the library, would I have received the same letter.

Let me explain.

Some time ago I approached the Library Director to ask why there were no internet filters on the computers that were available for public use. Many Public Libraries are notorious for making internet pornography accessable to their patrons.

I heard several of the same excuses that I had heard before at other Public Libraries.

"It's not a problem here" and "filters are too expensive".

I even offered to pay for the filtering software. Ultimately, the truth seems to be that many Public Libraries just simply don't want to place any limits on the internet pornography that can be accessed on their computer screens.

As I looked through this particular library, I saw books with photographs of graphic sex that had been approved by the Library Director.

I saw books in the Young Adult section that encouaged young girls to have their preborn babies killed and even provided contact information for abortion providers.

The items that are "suitable for viewing by all ages" in this library are clearly not items that would make it onto lists of most people.

So here I stand, with the threat of "banishment" hanging over my head. What are my options here?

1. I could just forget about the murdered preborn and the command to speak out on their behalf. I could simply hang out with the children at the Library looking at the porn in their books and on their computers. This would be acceptable to the ALA and I probably wouldn't receive any threatening letters.

or

2. I could just go on speaking out on behalf of my King wherever that may be. This may not be nearly as acceptable to those who stock the bookshelves but I think it is the better of the two choices.

I encourage you to stand against the flood of sin that seeks to overwhelm the young people in your community. You can make a difference for good. Though you may find yourself "banished", there will be a place prepared for you if you remain faithful to your King.

Life and Liberty Ministries

OK. First of all, I do the same thing, so I'm not criticizing you. I've been known to slip tracts into books, too. Used to do it with newspapers. I'd put my quarter in, open the box, and place tracts in the newspapers until somebody pointed out to me that it was wrong of me to do that, when others have to pay to advertise in the paper and that I was essentially stealing advertising revenue from them. Can't think of a good reason not to do it, so I haven't stopped doing that.

But, that having been said, yes, it was their right to ban you.

Sorry it happened, but sometimes there's a price to pay for evangelism.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Not enough to harangue each other about, so we dredge up nine year old threads???

 

[SaggyWoman]

I am not sure how relevant you are being by hiding tracts in books. Really?

Can you be more forth coming and maybe promote your stance by buying books for the library that advocate your stance? Or put flyers on the public area if you can do that (on rack or bulletin board) about a nearby crisis pregnancy center?

Or offer pro life magazine subscriptions?