Posted on 07/21/2004 4:58:49 AM PDT by snopercod
A few days ago my daughter related how she took my ten-year-old Grandson to the Eau Gallie, FL (near Melbourne) public library to check out some books. She turned him loose in the kids' section while she looked for some books for herself.
A while later, they each took their stack of books to the counter, checked them out, and went home. My daughter didn't inspect his choices any farther than the covers - big mistake. This is one of the books he chose (cool cover, right?):
"Meet Rally and Minnie-May -- The Gunsmith Cats -- two of the most fun-loving, well-armed, bounty-hunting women in Chicago! Whether they're chasing bail jumpers or fending off the mob, you can bet on a healthy supply of guns, bombs, car chases, and more guns! In this 176-page trade paperback -- collecting issues 1 through 6 of the series -- the pair run afoul of Bonnie and Clyde, a couple of hired guns working mob jobs in the Windy City. With their business interests running on opposite sides of the law, it's no surprise that the net result is gunfire and mayhem!"
Later in the day, Grandson shows Mom what's inside the book. Her eyes got big and her jaw dropped. Splattered across an entire page was a lewd sex act of the monica kind in graphic detail captioned with "OOOH, yeah!", "Oh Babe...!", MMPH!, etc.
My daughter turned some more pages and found episodes of cop killing, cocaine sniffing, drug dealing, prostitution, and normal, head-banging sex ("Twenty friggin' times" to quote the John) - all punctuated with assorted gutter language. There's a frame in there that even I can't figure out. Some guy is apparently performing fallatio on his gun barrel. His tongue is licking the side of it with the caption, "hahh...ahhh...huhh".
It turns out that "fun loving" character Minnie-May Hopkins portrays an underaged prostitute. Nice.
You know, I'm not a prude and not a "social conservative". But what the heck is a book like this doing in a public library at all, let alone in the childrens' section?
My daughter went back and talked to the woman at the desk, who thought this book was completely suitable, apparently. When asked why it was in the childrens' section, she said, "Oh this was probably misfiled. It should have been in the teenage section". When asked why it was in the library at all, the woman responded, "Because it's popular with the kids". Well hell, why not throw in a couple of beers with each book; That's popular with the kids, too.
I hope my daughter follows up on this. I recommended that she write a letter (with copies of the offending pages) to the Brevard County Supervisors and ask them why her tax dollars were being used to purchase this crap and push it on her children.
Prepare a letter to the head librarian explaining that you have returned the item to the mayor (or City Council, or whoever oversees the library) with an explantion of where it was displayed. Attach a photocopy of the front cover and the most offensive page.
Return the item (in person, preferably) to the Mayor's office, with the appropriate pages tabbed, and with the other materials covered by a cover letter to the Mayor asking for an explanation. You might also copy media outlets (such as a local, conservative columnist, and a local AM talk radio host) on the correspondence.
That should take care of it.
Thanks for your suggestions. I've E-mailed her a link to this thread.
TheftTaking the possessions of others without authorization is sometimes morally permissible. For example, a person on the verge of starvation is permitted to "steal" food. Similarly, it is permissible to take a weapon away from a person who is deranged. Neither of these acts can be properly termed "stealing."He is not justified in declining always and without regard to conditions to assent to the alienation of what belongs to him merely because it is his. Thus one in danger of death from want of food, or suffering any form of extreme necessity, may lawfully take from another as much as is required to meet his present distress even though the possessor's opposition be entirely clear. Neither, therefore, would he be bound to restitution if his fortunes subsequently were notably bettered, supposing that what he had converted to his own use was perishable. The reason is that individual ownership of the goods of this world, though according to the natural law, yields to the stronger and more sacred right conferred by natural law upon every man to avail himself of such things as are necessary for his own preservation. St. Thomas (II-II:66:7) declares that in such straits what is taken becomes, because of the dire need experienced, one's very own, and so cannot be said to be stolen. This doctrine is sometimes expressed by saying that at such a time all things become common, and thus one reduced to such utter destitution only exercises his right.
Everything that we possess ultimately belongs to God. None of us has an absolute right to ownership of property.
In this case, it is moral to destroy pornography since it has no proper use, and because it represents a clear and present danger to the moral health of others. In fact, destroying these things is obligatory, except in cases where countervailing prudential reasons would apply.
Is it permissible for a man on the verge of starvation to take food that belongs to another without permission?
Secondly, does God give any person or institution a right to possess pornography?
Wrong. I can decline giving you what is mine for any reason, a bad reason or no reason at all.
Thus one in danger of death from want of food, or suffering any form of extreme necessity, may lawfully take from another as much as is required to meet his present distress even though the possessor's opposition be entirely clear
Great, so a hungry person should have every right to break into your house and take as much food as he needs. Wonderful.
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
Neither, therefore, would he be bound to restitution if his fortunes subsequently were notably bettered, supposing that what he had converted to his own use was perishable.
This is perhaps the stupidest thing I have read today. Not only are you allowed to steal, but you're also not required to make restitution.
St. Thomas (II-II:66:7) declares that in such straits what is taken becomes, because of the dire need experienced, one's very own, and so cannot be said to be stolen.
If St. Thomas believes that, then he is an idiot.
Taking the possessions of others without authorization is sometimes morally permissible. For example, a person on the verge of starvation is permitted to "steal" food.
It is also morally permissible for the person from whom the food is being stolen to shoot the thief.
Similarly, it is permissible to take a weapon away from a person who is deranged.
If your only intent is to prevent the deranged person from huting others, then you have not formed the criminal intent to steal.
Everything that we possess ultimately belongs to God. None of us has an absolute right to ownership of property.
No, but I have a much greater right to my property than some thief. Therefore, unless God himself comes and forces me to give up my property (and it would still require force on his part- I'm not giving up my property even to him voluntarily), I am well withing my rights to use force to keep a thief from stealing it.
In this case, it is moral to destroy pornography since it has no proper use, and because it represents a clear and present danger to the moral health of others. In fact, destroying these things is obligatory, except in cases where countervailing prudential reasons would apply.
Just because you have some quasi-moral basis for comitting a crime doesn't mean you're not a thief and/or a vandal.
No.
Secondly, does God give any person or institution a right to possess pornography?
Assuming God exists and Christian myths are true, yes.
Anime ping.
Take care.
I agree. God has given man Free Will. You can choose to look or not.
As for the government having porn in the library, if you don't like it, there are proper channels to go through to get it removed short of breaking God's and Man's Law.
Doing something wrong for the right reason is still wrong.
Doing something right for the wrong reason is still wrong.
If the librarian put it there knowing what was in it, he/she should be fired. However, odds are, they saw a comic book and naturally put it in the kids's section.
Do rights exist?
If so, what do they derive from?
You're confusing "power" and "right."
God has given man the power to do evil. But God's ordaining will is that we avoid evil. Those who do evil and do not repent are damned. And those who lead Christ's little one's astray would be better off thrown into the sea with millstones around their necks.
God did not give man freedom to do evil, but to do good. God does not give us a right to do evil. The idea is self-contradictory.
Yes
If so, what do they derive from?
The only rights you have are the ones you can seize from tyrants. To a large extent, your rights derive from the barrell of a gun.
You have every right to do evil. However, there may also be some consequences from exercising such a right.
In any event, manga is not evil. Inanimate objects are neither good nor bad.
Let me guess; you'd like to take things away from people on behalf of the common good.
My daughter is a Manga fan, and even she knows that this particular series is the type that should be kept wrapped in plastic in the stores! Somebody who didn't check on the various types of Manga must have chosen this one!
" Japan is still the safest country in the world and until recently, violent crime was virtually unheard of in Japanese society "
"recently"? Yeah right, on the surface like most G-8 countries Japan appears safe and honorable but Japan too has it's unspoken dark side like their version of the mob, prostitution, weird fetish clubs, etc. Don't be so naive.
"Well, I guess that makes me ignorant because I still think that drawings of teenaged girls with their lips slathering the penis of a middle-aged male are pornography."
Gee (sarcasm) Looks like male pedophiles are universal. When will the pigs die off.
RIP Amanda Morton
"Forget potential..too risky...just burn all books, all languages"
Aww who pee'd in your cornFLAKES? Don't worry, nobody is out to burn libraries down. (whiner)
" The Supreme Court's ruling protecting certain forms of computer-generated child pornography is being called a victory for pornographers. One member of Congress says the high court sided with pedophiles over children."
Yeah forget about raising respectful responsible future generations. Turn everything into quick sound bites spiced with sexually gratuitous misogynys imagery. It's mans f'd up world, let them clean up their own mess.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.