After pro-family campaign, GA library drops drag queen storytime for kids

[redleghunter]

What if it wasn't for some LGBTQ thing, and instead, a guy playing, "Granny's story time." just playing the part as a costume?

But frankly it isn't granny's story time.

 

[SilverBear]

How about quoting the guy who did it:

Xochi Mochi on Instagram: “I got to read to the children today and it was one of the best experiences I’ve been given as a drag queen. It’s so important to have…”

and your link shows that RestoreTheJoy's claims about what was posted on Instagram are false.

 

[SilverBear]

It's traumatizing.

It would give ME nightmares.

Why would ANYONE dress as a satanic demon to "read to children"?

It's sick, twisted, and sadistic.

no one did dress as a satanic demon.

Fact Check

 

[SilverBear]

I truly get you don't want it to be but it is true. We use the same public library. Who is right and who is wrong and whose will should be imposed?

what will? what is being imposed? Nothing.

the truth remains that drag queens aren't transvestites.
"I don't look like a woman and i don't want to. I look like a cartoon of a woman." Violet Chachki

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Should we expose children to inappropriate contentography, violent images and dangerous weapons so they learn more about reality?

I think my point is there are some realities which are adult content in nature. Meaning, children cannot process fully and it is why we don't expose them to sexual content and violence. Such is not cuddling or being a helicopter parent. Such is actually protecting the innocence of our children who later will grow into their own both mentally, spiritually and physically.

As Christians can we teach the Royal Law without exposing out children to adult content? Yes we can.

As Christians can we teach our children about God's Holiness and as such why He Judges and that due to this separation of mankind from their Creator, He provided us with His Greatest Love in Christ to save us? Sure we can and have been doing it for centuries.

People fear final Judgment in general because the Light has come into the world and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. (John 3:19)

But they are not exposing kids to inappropriate contentography or violence. So I'm not seeing your point. Also you don't have to take your kids to these events. Maybe Christians should worry about their homes. Before they worry about nothing.

 

[redleghunter]

the truth remains that drag queens aren't transvestites

Most are. The performing arts? That may be true as it is acting. But there are men who dress as women and it is a fetish.

 

[SilverBear]

Most are.

Evidence?

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I truly get you don't want it to be but it is true. We use the same public library. Who is right and who is wrong and whose will should be imposed?

Nobody is forcing you to have this person to read to your kids. Also the library isn't forcing kids to read about Gays, lesbians or any thing related. Thats the choice of the childs parent. I really dont see why anyone try to shut it down. If you dont like . dont go to that event.

 

[rambot]

What if they had the drag queens doing the reading in their "civvies"?

I mean, I have no problem with transgenderism, transvestites, whatever. Have at 'er.

I just don't understand the purpose of the program. Is it just to have transvestites reading in front of kids? And if that is the purpose, is it to normalize that presentation?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I truly get you don't want it to be but it is true. We use the same public library. Who is right and who is wrong and whose will should be imposed?

I think with any taxpayer funded institution, first amendment protocol (Lemon v Kurtzman(403 US 602)) should be followed.

Error on the side of more freedom and not less, and any restrictions need to pass "The Lemon Test".

Can a person provide a reason that's both A) compelling -- meaning it needs to be something of substance and can't purely be "because I just don't like it", and B) needs to be secular and not a case of the government enforcing a rule that's clearly catering to a religious belief.?

If a person can't provide a reason to ban it that fits both of those criteria (which is going to be very tough since we're not even talking about a compulsory activity -- nobody is forcing anyone's kids to partake in his), then it shouldn't be restricted.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I think with any taxpayer funded institution, first amendment protocol (Lemon v Kurtzman(403 US 602)) should be followed.

Error on the side of more freedom and not less, and any restrictions need to pass "The Lemon Test".

Can a person provide a reason that's both A) compelling -- meaning it needs to be something of substance and can't purely be "because I just don't like it", and B) needs to be secular and not a case of the government enforcing a rule that's clearly catering to a religious belief.?

If a person can't provide a reason to ban it that fits both of those criteria (which is going to be very tough since we're not even talking about a compulsory activity -- nobody is forcing anyone's kids to partake in his), then it shouldn't be restricted.

Certainly. So long as standards are evenly applied.

Middlebury, Berkeley, William and Mary - I could go on all day about events shut down on campus (some of which take public funds) because some excessively delicate students could not even tolerate the presence of a person on campus with a position at variance with their own. Since they do not wish to hear the person, by golly, no one can hear the person. The very definition of intolerance, a childish demand that you must do and say what they want or else they will hurt you one way or another. Hey...stay home! Problem solved.

It doesn't end there. There are people who seek out and sue artists in various media who do not support the redefinition of marriage (which has now been affirmed by no less than the Supreme Court - at which bad decision you saw zero rioting and destruction of property by opponents, by the way).

There are people who can't even be respectful toward the office of a President they didn't happen to elect, and rage, sometimes violently, against others who disagree with them. Many people have been beaten up simply because they were wearing a hat, for God's sake! There are people who can't tolerate a parade, a speaker, a Supreme Court Justice, a court case, all kinds of things. People were targeted by the IRS at the behest of our last leader, on the basis of political viewpoints.

Though not all situations involve government (and hence, the First Amendment), intolerance certainly spills over, so it needs to be addressed, sharply, and at an early age that everyone is NOT going to agree with you and that's ok. No need to riot, hit someone, throw things, or steal hats because someone disagrees with you on some issue.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Certainly. So long as standards are evenly applied.

Middlebury, Berkeley, William and Mary - I could go on all day about events shut down on campus (some of which take public funds) because some excessively delicate students could not even tolerate the presence of a person on campus with a position at variance with their own. Since they do not wish to hear the person, by golly, no one can hear the person. The very definition of intolerance, a childish demand that you must do and say what they want or else they will hurt you one way or another. Hey...stay home! Problem solved.

Absolutely the standard should be applied evenly...

In fact, people from both sides have been hit by that. Both Bill Maher and Ben Shapiro were nixed from the same venue within weeks of each other by various pockets of "delicate students", as you referred to them.

 

[SilverBear]

. Since they do not wish to hear the person, by golly, no one can hear the person.

Oh the irony

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Oh the irony

What irony would that be?

I don't see conservatives silencing liberal speakers on campus (or anywhere), and shutting down events so no one can hear them. Can you name any such incidents?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Absolutely the standard should be applied evenly...

In fact, people from both sides have been hit by that. Both Bill Maher and Ben Shapiro were nixed from the same venue within weeks of each other by various pockets of "delicate students", as you referred to them.

Source? Not surprised Ben Shapiro is silenced as he is generally conservative.

Not finding anything on Maher not being permitted to speak. Please cite the source.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Source? Not surprised Ben Shapiro is silenced as he is generally conservative.

Not finding anything on Maher not being permitted to speak. Please cite the source.

Maher talks about it on Real-time when he has Shapiro as a guest.

Let me watch the youtube video really quick first to make sure it's "profanity-free" and if it is, I'll link it...

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Sorry, I can't link it here...there is profanity, but it's easy enough to find with a quick search on youtube for "maher ben shapiro"

He talks about it just before the 1-minute mark.

Here's the event he was talking about:
Signez la pétition

Here is what their petition stated:
This year, UC Berkeley has chosen to invite Bill Maher to speak. Bill Maher has made comments thata are blantantly bigoted and racist and has no respect for the values UC Berkeley students and administration stand for. In a time where climate is a priority for all on campus, we cannot invite an individual who himself perpetuates a dangerous learning environment. Bill Maher's public statements on various religions and cultures are offensive and his dangerous rhetoric has found its way into our campus communities.

 

[SilverBear]

What irony would that be?

I don't see conservatives silencing liberal speakers on campus (or anywhere), and shutting down events so no one can hear them. Can you name any such incidents?

Shutting down events? did you read the OP?

 

[ViaCrucis]

What irony would that be?

I don't see conservatives silencing liberal speakers on campus (or anywhere), and shutting down events so no one can hear them. Can you name any such incidents?

Um. Did you read the OP? This thread is about a conservative group silencing and shutting down an event so certain people couldn't be heard.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[loveofourlord]

Shutting down events? did you read the OP?

Reminds me of the hypocrisy and irony of those complaining about the duck dynasty being taken off the air, when how many of them did the same thing over american muslims or such or will try to remove anything they don't like off the air.