Sunday, February 21, 2010

New Smyrna Beach Dumps Evil Christians

Evil Christians are not welcome at the New Smyrna Beach Public Library, FL.  Now that's what I call a safe library!  See, "Florida Library Sued Over Access Issue," by Charlie Butts, OneNewsNow, 20 February 2010.  The library would not allow a seminar called "Religion in America" by Anthony Verdugo of the Christian Family Coalition.

On the other hand, good Christians are welcome to "Bible Study" in the same library!  See the "Calendar of events" link on the picture shown above right?  After you click on it, scroll down to 25 February 2010 to see this:

Can you believe this?  I'm confused—sometimes Christians are allowed and sometimes they are not?  Is the library now in the business of deciding which Christians are evil and which are not, which speech is good and which is not?  It's a seminar called "Religion in America."  Suddenly libraries are freedom of speech opponents?

I have written about this type of library wackiness before.  See "Library Denies Civil Rights of Christians and is As Blatantly Un-American and Unconstitutional As You Can Get,'" by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 15 June 2008.  It contains of number of links on similar issues, including the same ADF winning in other jurisdictions on the same issues.

Why are some libraries so hostile to Christians?  Why do children get access to anything no matter how inappropriate, but Christians are excluded from speaking and Christian books are not allowed?  It looks like yet another double standard to me.  Please comment below.



  1. In no way was the library deciding "which Christians are evil and which are not," as you put it. Christian groups that were allowed to meet at this library made it clear in their application that they were holding meetings, not religious services. The group that got rejected indicated on their application that their meeting would include prayers and songs, and library decided this qualified the proposed meeting as a religious service, which their policy does not allow. There is, of course, no discrimination between Christian groups, or between religious in general, since the policy prohibits all religious services, regardless of denomination or creed.

    I would agree that library use policies that prohibit religious services in general are probably overly broad. The underlying issue is noise, which the configuration of meeting and work areas may not accommodate. Policies prohibiting religious services in general should probably be rewritten to focus only on the noise issue.

    As anyone who has perused the shelves of almost any public library in the country must realize, your suggestion that "Christian books are not allowed" is beyond ridiculous.

  2. Oh my, I wrote a long comment and a technical glitch lost it. Let me summarize.

    The "evil" was just my playing with words--artistic license, so to speak. That was pretty obvious. And my comment about Christian books was linked to a source that would clarify that. That is also obvious.

    Noncensor99 excuses the library's denial of free speech by saying the "Religion in America" seminar included a few prayers.

    The problem is:

    1) The library supposedly stands for free speech, how ironic that it denies free speech for a seminar on "Religion in America" just because it includes a few prayers. And songs, no less.

    2) The library cannot be selective as to what is allowed and what is not. The library already has "Bible Study" meetings. Those meetings likely include a prayer or two. You cannot allow that and disallow another speech that includes a prayer or two.

    3) The library cannot have a double standard. If you have a meeting that includes a little prayer, you cannot argue that that little prayer invalidates the entire meeting. The double standard is that when library materials contain material inappropriate for children, the constant argument is that you cannot take that little blow job or bloody anal rape scene out of context.

    4) Another double standard is that the library is denying the meeting based on the perception of its contents. How many times do we hear that we cannot judge material inappropriate for children unless we have first read the entire work. Materials reconsideration policies often ask if the person has read the entire work. But the seminar is disallowed without the library first having seen the entire seminar. Again, you cannot have it both ways.

    Yet here is someone called "Noncensor99" defending censorship. He is defending the library by, knowingly or not, using double standards, excusing selective decisions, and justifying freedom of speech violations.


  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. I confess! If I were a librarian I would gleefully spend my time reviewing every application to use library meeting space, trying to figure out what their message is, and decide whether or not they should be allowed to talk among themselves about such awful things. I wouldn't worry about whether the noise of the meeting might disturb people who were actually trying to READ in the library. I would just decide on the basis of whether or not I approved personally of the message that they were'nt sharing with anybody else, just themselves.

  5. Concerning Christian's in the "new" libraries of this Nation, ironically, the large majority of our Founding Fathers were in fact practicing Christians who based our Constitutional freedoms and inalienable rights upon Biblical Principles of Liberty defined by God Himself through the Holy Scriptures. This is the source for Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Inquiry.

    If you take Benjamin Franklin's autobiography as a reliable historical source, you will find that libraries of the New Continent in the 1700's were not only apprenticeship in nature - including Christian seminary - but also "itinerant" bookmobiles for the clergy of the colonies dealing with nothing BUT Christian doctrine professing the love of not only neighbor, but also enemy, and that of social tolerance and the sharing of burdens economic and otherwise.

    If groups declaring their right to pornography, racial supremacy, and national annihilation through violent force are allowed meeting space, what of a peaceful seminar on "Religion in America?"

    Were they serving Molotov cocktails instead of peanut butter cookies?


Comments of a personal nature, trolling, and linkspam may be removed.