Jump to content

Kirk Cameron and drag queen story hour


Eli45

Recommended Posts

He wanted to speak to children at a library and they wouldn't let him. Also is touring USA and tried to speak at several events but being protested by activists screaming and yelling at him. Now is this moral or fair? Would you allow him to speak at your bookstore? Would Bill Maher?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't believe the claim.  A responsible journalist would have researched it and maybe got a comment from one of the libraries.

Instead we just have a culture war Puff piece.

I believe it. Most (if not all) libraries are directed by heathens, so it makes sense that KC's getting straight armed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/25/2023 at 10:39 AM, Michael Hardner said:

I don't believe the claim.  A responsible journalist would have researched it and maybe got a comment from one of the libraries.

Instead we just have a culture war Puff piece.

I do. Why would public libraries accept faith-based programming? He's not being excluded because he's an a-hole.  If he wanted to volunteer to read standard children's books instead of proselytizing, I'm sure he'd be welcomed--despite being an a-hole.

Edited by Hodad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Hodad said:

I do. Why would public libraries accept faith-based programming ?

Why wouldn't they accept his book ?  It's a book.

https://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/search.jsp;jsessionid=7ekfCnKhZwA9VEioXdZU-jYz.tplapp-p-2a?Ntt=Christian+authors&Ntk=Subject_Search_Interface&view=grid&Erp=20

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Talking about two different things. They didn't reject his book--although librarians build collections and some may not think it a worthwhile addition. Apparently the latest installment is not even a story, but disintegrated collection of opaque platitudes - which are paired with illustrations - followed by a sort of Christian activity workbook. 

The complaint, as I understand it, is that some libraries have declined to sponsor his reading events. Most community libraries have an explicit mission to create inclusive, safe spaces for everyone. When librarians can turn on the TV and see Kirk Cameron on TV declaring himself and his books as part of a "war for the hearts of children," fighting for Christian and conservative values and against "wokeness" and tolerance for gender and sexuality deviance, then I think it's reasonable (and correct) for librarians to assess that Cameron's content and mission are not aligned with the mission of the library. 

Like schools, parks and other of public spaces, libraries walk a fine line when it comes to religion. How do they tolerate all without endorsing any? Typically there's a distinction between private facility use and public programming. The "Christianity is the Only True Faith" club of Minneapolis could reserve or rent a study or meeting room at any library or school in town offering such spaces. But neither of those places are likely to host a public performance of proselytizing that is likely to be understood as state support.

Anyway, I think the substantive debate is a bit of a distraction, really, from what's actually happening. Cameron is not new to the culture wars. He is a wealthy person with diverse business and creative enterprises. He has zero interest in touring libraries around the country doing book readings. But if he can collect some rejections it becomes marketing gold for an audience that loves and craves a victimhood narrative. "Our socially dominant religion is being repressed! Quick, everybody send Mike Seaver $30 for Jesus!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Hodad said:

1. They didn't reject his book--although librarians build collections and some may not think it a worthwhile addition. 

2. The complaint, as I understand it, is that some libraries have declined to sponsor his reading events.  

3. Like schools, parks and other of public spaces, libraries walk a fine line when it comes to religion. How do they tolerate all without endorsing any?   

4. Anyway, I think the substantive debate is a bit of a distraction, really, from what's actually happening. 

1. 2. Makes sense.
3. They should let them all participate if they're inclusive.
4. haha... should be in reverse but ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. 2. Makes sense.
3. They should let them all participate if they're inclusive.
4. haha... should be in reverse but ok.

3. Not quite. That logic doesn't hold. Inclusivity doesn't come from tolerating every form of speech, but from creating an environment in which everyone can feel welcome on the same terms. As an example, if you invited Baptists, Muslims and Mormons to proselytize  you would be including a diversity of faiths, but you'd also be sending message that gay people, trans people, atheists and agnostics etc. vile deviants and damned heretics. So it's not creating an inclusive environment, but rather an exclusive one populated by a diverse set of excluders. The library ceases to be a welcoming safe space for all.

Alternatively, the way to create an inclusive environment is to say that baptists, muslims, mormons, gays, trans people, atheists agnostics etc. are all welcome at the library -everyone is welcome- but exclusionary programming is not. Come to the library, volunteer, read as many Dr. Seuss and Judy Bloom books as you want. Just don't preach or teach exclusive lessons. Those don't align with our mission. Really, that's a lot like most workplaces. You know that there's a diversity of political, religious and cultural beliefs, but nobody is allowed to preach about it and everyone can be comfortable doing their tasks and coexisting. 

4. Yes! It should be reversed, but it isn't. This is making lemonade out of lemons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Hodad said:

1. As an example, if you invited Baptists, Muslims and Mormons to proselytize  you would be including a diversity of faiths, but you'd also be sending message that gay people, trans people, atheists and agnostics etc. vile deviants and damned heretics.  

Not all religious people think that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Not all religious people think that.

Agreed, not all. Of course, many do think that, but unanimity isn't really the point. The point was that if you "let them all participate" or specifically to let them all proselytize  or sermonize as part of public programming it doesn't create an inclusive environment. Instead, they really just take turns being exclusive. After all, they all claim to be the one true faith. Far better, I think, to keep proselytizing, sermonizing etc. out of the public spaces as a matter of policy. Freedom of religion really does mean freedom from religion too. 

And, FWIW, most religions and sects don't want equal access, they want exclusive or dominant access to public support and spaces. The Church of Satan is rather successful in demonstrating that point at every opportunity. Every time they show up to claim their share of equal access to public support the religious folks change opinions very quickly, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I think that you're generalizing what religious messages mean.  

Maybe. But also I think the generalization is correct. 

For example, a Christian might share the message "Love everybody." But "Love everybody." isn't a religious message. No one would object to that. 

But if the message is "Love everybody because Jesus is the savior and he said to love everybody." that's becomes a religious message and is inherently exclusionary to other faiths and non-faiths.  

The distinction I've been making is between messenger and message. Inclusivity means anyone from any faith or non-faith can come and participate in appropriate activities comfortably. It doesn't mean that anybody can use public space to produce any content they want, particularly when there's a hostility baked into religious messaging. Religions can get coexist at a superficial level, but underlying the civility they are not pluralistic and are inherently hostile to one another. 

If someone says that Jesus is the only path to salvation and eternal happiness that sounds fine enough, but the other edge of that sword is that it is telling all the Jews, Muslims- whatever -that their beliefs are wrong, inferior and that their souls are damned unless they convert. So not exactly nice dinnertime conversation. -- Best to just stop at "Love everybody."   

Edited by Hodad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

1. Maybe. But also I think the generalization is correct. 

2. But if the message is "Love everybody because Jesus is the savior and he said to love everybody." that's becomes a religious message and is inherently exclusionary to other faiths and non-faiths.  If someone says that Jesus is the only path to salvation and eternal happiness that sounds fine enough, but the other edge of that sword is that it is telling all the Jews, Muslims- whatever -that their beliefs are wrong, inferior and that their souls are damned unless they convert. So not exactly nice dinnertime conversation. -- Best to just stop at "Love everybody."   

1. You can't use generalizations to restrict individual rights, even if true.  Example: "THIS group is more likely to commit crime, therefore they're not allowed in my store" etc.
2. There's something to what you say but I doubt that libraries restrict faith-based activities that much.  Toronto hosted a TERF friendly speaker based on 'freedom of speech' last year I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. You can't use generalizations to restrict individual rights, even if true.  Example: "THIS group is more likely to commit crime, therefore they're not allowed in my store" etc.
2. There's something to what you say but I doubt that libraries restrict faith-based activities that much.  Toronto hosted a TERF friendly speaker based on 'freedom of speech' last year I think.

Yeah, I think individual libraries make their own calls in most cases-- they set a policy and stick to it as well as they can. That Toronto speaker seems like a tough sell to me, but I don't know what their policies are. 

Kirk Cameron (pivoting back) was allowed at several libraries. He Trumped it right up though, claiming all sorts of things about record attendance blah blah. The library had to issue a statement correcting his claims. Sigh. No good deed goes unpunished in the culture war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...