seems to have little value or understanding. The ACLU is their for all of us. One day Fischer just might find someone stepping on his legal right to free speech. There is something to be said for an educated society.

that stirred up the whole issue in the first place. How would they feel if we forced libraries to remove any books pertaining to Christianity?

This is a fun case to watch...

First, the library has no requirement to own, provide, or shelve these books. They could simply toss them - within public property disposal laws. I suspect these now famous books would do well on e-bay.

Second, it makes no sense to buy the books for the library and then selectively house these two in a secure area. I suspect a tour of the books could raise a list of other titles some of us would not want our children to read.

Third, it is interesting that the "conservative" view in this case is to have big government dictate the personal reading liberties of citizens, and appoint the librarian as defacto parent rather than encourage individual responsibility and actual parental supervision.

Fourthly, fear of the ACLU and the costs of litigation are a "straw man" argument. If the library board is on solid legal footing, and they truly represent their constituency they have a responsibility to fight the issue. The truth is most people don't care, and the issue would fail in court.

We are all pulling for you though. You can do it!

The comparison between Bryan Fischer’s efforts to try to get the Ten Commandments Monument returned to Julia Davis Park and the ACLU’s threats to get The Joy of Sex and The Joy of Gay Sex returned to the shelves of the Nampa Public Library is curious and inapt. Procedurally the Boise City Council moved quickly and arbitrarily to remove the Ten Commandments without any input from the public Likewise they later tried to avoid holding a vote on the issue as they were obligated to do. . In short Fischer was ultimately asking for the democratic process to be followed in this matter. On the other hand the Nampa Public Library did not remove the offending books until public outcry had all but forced them to do so. What the ACLU has done is to subvert the democratic process by threatening legal action.
Substantively the differences between the two cases are staggering. The ethical teachings of the Ten Commandments are part of the moral backbone of our civilization. Whether a person believes in the God of the Bible or not, it is hard to deny that things like the proscriptions on murder, theft and perjury serve an important purpose. Likewise this message is not one that constitutes any sort of threat or harm to the young. The two “Joy” books are different. They don’t serve the same sort of positive moral purpose as the Commandments. In addition it would be hard for any reasonable person to deny that the behaviors discussed and illustrated in the books are not the sort of things that children should be engaging in.

First, I am not Bryan Fischer (nor am I Brandi Swindell). While Bryan is a friend and we do see eye to eye on most (but not all) issues, the comment in question was written on my own initiative and represents my own thoughts. I think Plutarch shows his own ignorance to assume that Bryan Fischer is the only person who thinks that pornography has no place on the shelves of the Nampa Public Library.
Second, I have taken a number of courses, both undergraduate and graduate level, dealing with the Constitution. The Constitution represents a balance between the rule of the majority and individual rights. Neither is absolute. I am not quarreling with the right of adults to read the offending books. But that does not mean that a publicly funded library, patronized by children should have said books on their shelves. The U.S. District Court’s assessment of attorneys’ fees against Bryan and Brandi represents a much bigger assault on personal liberty and the right of free expression than does the withdrawal of the two “Joy” books from the Nampa Public Library shelves.
Third, I agree that freedom of religion is very important. But in the United States of America we understand this as freedom of religion not freedom from religion as all too many in Europe do. The Judeo-Christian tradition is one of the foundations of both our society as well as the philosophy embodied in the constitutional guarantees of the individual liberties Plutarch is so concerned with .We turn our backs on this heritage at our peril.
Fourth with regard to “threats to children”, If you knew me you could never say that I was for denying people knowledge. There are, however, topics that reasonable people would not want to introduce before a certain age and not without adequate explanations. The fact is there are potentially harmful consequences to immoral sexual activity. To present the sort of things these books do to children before they are mature enough to consider the consequences of their actions and without a proper context is recklessly irresponsible.
Finally Plutarch obviously has not read the Old Testament if he believes it contains extreme examples of sex, far worse than the “Joy” books!

methinks the gay blade is at heart, a self-loathing hypocrite

Aren't these "Joy" books out of children's access? If so, what's the fuss? As for the Ten Rules being the basis of our sense of morality....please. Do you really think people haven't figured out right and wrong without the Ten Rules? And besides, if they are such great guidelines why don't we follow the punishments as prescribed in the "good" book. I think most folks might think death is a tad bit of an over reaction to talking back to your dad. Also, what kind of insecure god warns against putting other gods before him. I tend not to worship jealous deities. They're so petty.