Samuels Library Debate – ‘Profoundly Moral Questions’

The decision on what to make available in a public library at taxpayer expense sometimes raises profoundly moral questions. Should our community pay to provide free access to books that advocate or promote cruelty to animals, breaking drug laws, robbing banks, public intoxication, profanity, reckless driving, etc? What about paedophilia, masturbation, child pornography, or other forms of sexual deviancy? Unfortunately, we do have an ascendent subculture here in Front Royal that does encourage sexual deviancy, even in children. Concerned citizens who object to this use of taxpayer money have the freedom to raise objections.

This debate centers on the question of taxpayer funding of objectionable material which offends against common decency. It’s not a question of banning books or imposing religious values. Other examples of objectionable material easily come to mind, such as those promoting prostitution, child pornography, genocide, and euthanasia. We even see people from far afield weighing in who seem to get a kick out of meddling in our community affairs. Apparently, we have a subculture here in Front Royal that wants to use the library to promote sexual deviancy to children. They argue that excluding their materials from public funding violates free speech and harms children. One recent writer even claims that availability of such books prevents bullying, suicide, and besides that, anyone against such books is a religious bigot! Would that person also claim that books promoting cannibalism or incest also prevent suicide, alleviate bullying, and fight bigotry?

This debate is about the character of our library and community. That character should be one of common decency and not one of social subversion.

Michael Randolph
Front Royal

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The statements and claims presented in the letters have not been independently verified by the Royal Examiner. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information provided in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.

While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish a diverse range of opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions taken based on these opinions.

In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the Royal Examiner the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.

We value the engagement of our readers and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.