Louisiana Voice

Last month I WROTE A PIECE about the Livingston Parish Council’s plans to move books deemed objectionable away from the children’s sections of the public libraries in the parish.

I attended that night’s meeting of the council and several in attendance, including the proponent of the book removals, Michael Lunsford, signed cards prior to the meeting indicating a desire to speak on the proposed resolution to support a letter to all the parish librarians.

We were even told after the meeting began that those having signed cards in advance of the meeting would be given four minutes to speak and those who had not submitted the cards but decided to speak anyway would be given two minutes.

But then, when Parish President Layton Ricks offered the resolution to the council, the motion was made quickly (too quickly, I might add), seconded, and passed unanimously – without allowing a single person in attendance the opportunity to speak. Ricks didn’t even extend the courtesy of making copies of the letter available to attendees.

So much for democracy in action.

Ricks’s letter was three pages in length, so I’ll spare you the details other than to say he did approach the volatile subject of censorship in a conciliatory manner, and to touch on the main point.

Acknowledging that “there are two sides to every story,” he wrote, “It appears to me that people on both sides of this issue are more interested in proving that their views are correct and everyone else is wrong than they are about addressing the real issue: What is best for our children. (sic) That should be the common goal.”

He then wrote, “…I encourage you to look beyond the arguments of adults caught up in their own battle of wills and remember the true issue at stake. I don’t have the right to ask that these books be totally removed from the library. However, in my opinion, if there is a concern about the content of a book, let’s at least put it in an adult section that is monitored by library staff or accessible only to children accompanied by a parent or guardian.”

Well, that was polite enough and may possibly have even diffused opposing viewpoints somewhat – had copies of the letter been made available in advance. It took a public records request for LouisianaVoice to obtain the document.

But the real underlying issue still goes back to the suspected ultimate end-game goal of the driving force behind the movement in Livingston (and the state’s other 63 parishes), one Michal Lunsford of St. Martin Parish.

I suggested in that August post and in an earlier one back LAST DECEMBER that it was just the first step toward book banning efforts.

“What’s next after you pull those books?” I wrote back then about efforts in Lincoln Parish that, it turned out, was just the opening salvo in this culture war. “What else might offend your sensibilities,” I wrote, “publications about slavery and injustices suffered by Blacks? Books about wrongful convictions of the innocent? Overcrowding of prisons because of harsh punishment enacted by “law and order” politicians for minor offenses? What about books that document American genocide, aka the near-eradication of Native Americans? Everything critical of any political viewpoint you happen not to share? Perhaps a certain cookbook because you happen to not like broccoli?”

I ended that rant by suggesting that some of the people in my home town of Ruston pull out their Bibles and read Matthew 7:1-3.

I reprised that post last month when I suggested that books about women’s rights (the struggle for women’s suffrage, for example), teachings about the Civil War because the topic of slavery would be unavoidable, the struggle for civil rights (such as Baton Rouge’s Bob Mann’s exemplary book, The Walls of Jerico). I even tossed out the possibility of an assault on the right to vote for blacks, women, or non-property owners.

In that piece, I overlooked encroachment on our freedom to choose which TV shows we deem to watch (probably because I happen not to watch much TV other than the news – not local news so much because I think it only exists to keep lawyer ads from bumping together).

But now US Rep. Mike Johnson from up Shreveport way has even waded into that discussion by taking on Danny DeVito and his new sitcom Little Demon.

The absurdity of Johnson’s taking time out from the nation’s problems of crime, environment, and economy to pick a fight with an animated cartoon is beyond description but he’s found a way to insert himself into the controversy that most didn’t even know existed.

DeVito does the voice of Satan in the cartoon. His daughter does the voice of Satan’s daughter, whose soul Satan tries to wrest control of from her mother, a mortal woman.

During Sunday night’s telecast of the LSU football game (who can forget that heartbreak?), ABC, whose parent company is Disney, ran a promo of the Disney show and Johnson claims he had to hurry and hit the remote to shield his 11-year-old daughter from the evil spirit of the preview which, I suppose, he felt might possess her body or pull her into the television a-la the 1982 movie Poltergeist. Johnson even fretted over how many other children might have been “exposed to it” or “how many millions more will tune in” to the series. (I would love to have seen and heard his take on the John Denver-George Burns 1977 movie Oh, God! but he was probably in the Marines about then and getting his tattoo.)

Well, he and all those who are so concerned about the content of libraries had better turn their attention to other sources. Online porn is oh-so-easily available over the Web and how many of these concerned parents keep a close watch over their kids’ computers and cellphones?

And parents might want to seriously consider “shielding,” as Johnson would put it, their children from reading certain parts of the BIBLE.

Johnson is horrified at the thought of a cartoon Satan but apparently is unconcerned about a talking snake. I wonder if he wants his daughter reading Numbers 31:17-18 (instructing God’s warriors to kill all male babies and women but to take female children for their own pleasure)? Or how about Lot offering up his two daughters for sex to the men of his neighborhood? Or of Lot later impregnating those same daughters? And what about all the mass murders perpetrated by God? Does he really want his daughter reading about a flood that wiped out all but the family of one man? Or of the plagues he sent on Egypt, including more mass murders of babies? Or still more mass murders of Egyptian soldiers by drowning? Lunsford’s companion at the Livingston meeting said the Bible “doesn’t condone” the killing but I beg to differ. Perhaps she should brush up on Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Numbers, and Leviticus.

They’ve already banned certain math textbooks in Florida. Math, for Pete’s sake! And Gov. DeSantis has even gone so far as to establish so-called “voting police” and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is offering a $10,000 bounty for neighbors to spy on neighbors.

Sorry, folks, but I just can’t shake this feeling that we’re headed down a slippery slope of banning books that tell of the dark chapters of our history – of Native American genocide, slavery, lynchings, civil rights struggles, and tens of thousands of Americans who died in wars that were fought for all the wrong reasons.

And lest some of you think I’m unpatriotic for offering up such criticism, I disagree vehemently. Patriotism is not “My Country Right or Wrong,” nor is it loyalty any political party – ANY political party – or politician. Patriotism is loving one’s country (and I do) and when seeing democracy wavering down a dangerous path, saying so – for the same reason we correct our children when they err or when we call 911 when witnessing a crime.