Don't Like Drag Queens Reading Books To Children? Ban The Public Library
caret-downdownloadfacebook2rss2searchtwitteryoutube

Don’t Like Drag Queens Reading Books To Children? Ban The Public Library

Drag Queens reading books to children is now a thing. And as you may have expected it, it’s funded and supported by government officials and tax-backed service providers such as public libraries.

While claiming the movement isn’t political, drag queen reading hour (DQRH) founders openly admit they are backed by political agents.

Using publicly funded spaces for their programs, the group uses books, stories, and activities to teach children as young as 3 that the physical differences between boys and girls aren’t to be noted, and that much like the adult man dressed as a queen before them, they, too, can create their own identity based on what kind of “gender” they prefer — all the while swearing nothing about these events is sexual in nature.

But despite how you feel about this classic example of indoctrination (hello there, public school system!), political power is what this controversy is really all about.

Whether the organization’s founders admit to it or not, the ideas propagated by DQRH aren’t being fed to young adults in a corporate setting or college grads taking a year off to backpack through Europe. They are being planted in the very young minds of impressionable children. And what’s worse, their parents are forcing others to pay for it.

The public library exists because the government gives it an endless pit of money backed by taxpayers. In a free market setting, however, the book-lending business would follow a very different model, one that relies on people who care to pay for services they want or find valuable.

The reality is that there’s a relationship between reward and performance. Considering that, so far, the gender fluid movement still represents a small percentage of the population, it’s fair to say that few entrepreneurs would be willing to open a fully privately funded space for groups such as DQRH. By tapping into public money and politicians, these groups are able to outperform their critics, forcing their presence into every community in the United States.

Timothy Gordon, in an article titled “Drag Queen Reading Hour Can Be Stopped,” argues that Christian parents can help ban DQRH events from their public libraries using the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, much like marijuana advocates are legalizing the substance across the country.

While he’s correct, there’s a far better and more effective solution, albeit a less likely one to gain broad support: ban the public library for once and for all. After all, the system was founded by a business magnate who wanted others to be forced to pay for his venture. In the age of the internet and private, little free libraries, public ones have run their course.

In order to develop a better system for self-education, both liberal and conservative parents must first realize that there’s nothing the state provides that can’t be better offered in the private realm. Additionally, the book-lending system could benefit greatly if the service provider relied on customers for their paycheck.

If there’s a market for DQRH events, then let parents who want to expose their children to it pay for it. Using tax levied on Christian families to support this type of program is nothing short of immoral, just as it is immoral to force those opposed to intervention in the Middle East to pay for an unwinnable war in Afghanistan.

Comment section

13 thoughts on “Don’t Like Drag Queens Reading Books To Children? Ban The Public Library

  1. A follow up to this story is warranted. Reading hour at the Montrose library annex in Houston was dropped by its supporters after it became known that a reader was a regestered sex offender. Check the archives at chron.com.

  2. I understand the need to be free of all state control, but the public library system does provide a good public service for education. I used the public library often as as a college student and find that many services that I pay for..Amazon, you tube, and Netflix don’t fully cover their niche, though I pay for them.

    Also, the religious connotations in this article are appalling. I want the least amount of government I can have. I also feel that the least amount of religion is also necessary as religion also seeks to control the masses..please refrain from further cristian backed views or I and my friend’s will have to find another source for our information.

    Thank you.

    1. Thank you for your feedback. It appears the author used the example of tax-paying Christians who are morally opposed to DQRH events as an example of how coercively funded public goods like libraries tend to create conflict and animosity between disparate interest groups. On the other hand, markets tend to resolve issues more peacefully and efficiently, because individuals may decide whether or not they wish to fund and support certain services, activities, and products.

  3. You aren’t forced to pay for churches or their mouthpieces. You can dismiss their rhetoric and actions at your whim. You ARE, however, forced to pay for libraries and cannot dismiss their rhetoric and actions at your whim.

  4. The idea behind public libraries is good, however the goverment indoctrination aspects have become apparent. Could we have a Confederate history hour reading by a grey uniformed man standing in front of a stars and bars flag?

  5. You lost me with “endless pit of money”. Libraries survive on a microscopic fraction of what Exxon/Mobil gets in corporate welfare. And unless we privatise ALL government services, my tax dollars DO go to fund the megachurches that are poisoning the youth of America a lot more than some silly bugger in a dress will.

    1. Thanks for your comment! We decided to investigate your claim that “Libraries survive on a microscopic fraction of what Exxon/Mobil gets in corporate welfare.” We discovered that revenue and expenses for the U.S. public library system are approximately 10 – 12 billion (with a ‘b’) dollars, annually. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/04/americans-like-their-libraries-but-they-use-them-less-and-less-pew/477336/

      Meanwhile, corporate subsidies from the U.S. government to Exxon Mobil are less than 4 billion dollars since 1983, most of which came from tax subsidies. https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/exxon-mobil

      The Advocates does not support corporate subsidies/welfare, nor do we support the theft of billions of dollars from hardworking American citizens to fund so-called “public goods” programs and services like public libraries. Markets and charities will supply demand to the degree that it exists.

  6. Sad. I enjoy reading and agree with most views published by theadvocates. While I wholeheartedly agree that forcing taxpayers to provide public libraries is morally reprehensible, the sad display of “moral” outrage concerning an individuals freedom to look and act as they please is unequivocally not libertarian. Playing the sex offender stereotype card only weakens your argument. No one is forcing parents to indoctrinate their children, they choose to participate. What if the DQRH movement is in a fact a libertarian trolling ploy to draw attention to the lack of relevance and waste of taxpayer funds that public libraries are… Ugh, I still may unsubscribe.

    1. Thank you for your feedback, and we’re sorry this article offends you. The Advocates passes no moral judgment on how people choose to dress or appear. With respect to “an individual’s freedom to look and act as they please,” libertarians acknowledge restrictions on certain actions–namely, the initiation of force and fraud. At least in some cases, there has been clear evidence of fraud at DQRH events, where sex offenders in drag read to children. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/texas-library-apologizes-after-registered-sex-offender-participated-in-drag-queen-storytime/ar-BBURGDM. Wouldn’t you agree that registered sex offenders (pedophiles) have no business pro-actively putting themselves in situations where they can interact with children?

  7. Thank you for your article. It seems that some people became quite hostile simply because the word “Christian” was used. I’d also like to know exactly what government funding churches are getting, because dang, that’s certainly new information to me. It’s disheartening to see people who believe that the truth of God is poisoning people and yet can turn around and in the same breath state that drag queens (more than one, actually, who have been found to be sex offenders and some of which have held very sexually explicit events at libraries that have exposed kids as young as 3) are less poisonous than people who believe in a historically, archaeologically-tested compilation of manuscripts that contain fulfilling scripture (some of which were recently fulfilled in Israel, i.e. life in the Dead Sea, birth of the red heifer) and have never been proved wrong. In fact, the more we find in archeology, the more Christianity and Judaism is supported, and yet we are poisoning people? In the last days, however, they will call evil good and good evil. By the way, if there is no God, how does anyone have a basis for determining that anyone’s viewpoint is poison (i.e. wrong)? Who determines that? Who holds the moral authority?

    Anytime someone stands up for protecting children these days, we’re called horrible things. People are more celebrated when they stand up for killing children. It’s one thing when parents take their kids to something they approve of. It’s quite another when they do so without knowing that the people haven’t been screened or background checked.

  8. So the poisonous people are those who believe in a historically and archaeologically-tested collection of manuscripts that have withstood the test of time and scrutiny and have fulfilled and fulfilling scripture (two that were just fulfilled in Israel … The Dead Sea coming to life and the perfect red heifer being born) while the non-poisonous people are the drag queens, more than one of which who are sex offenders and some of which who were recently found to be conducting sexually explicit talks to pre-teen and teen girls (and before they closed it to just these ages, they had sexually explicit material available to kids as young as 3). Exactly what moral authority do people use when they make this determination? I mean, without a higher authority, there is no right and wrong, so it’s all good, right? We can do whatever we want and morality changes with the wind.
    In the last days, they will call evil good and good evil.

  9. Ugh. To some of the above people, libertarianism does not dictate a moral policy!

    It simply dictates that the government should not outlaw things that are weird or undesirable to some people, even if it is the majority of people.

    There is a thin line between accepting something that is potentially bad, and pushing something. I think crack should be legal… But that doesn’t mean I should be okay with somebody who is pushing crack smoking as being a good thing.

    It is the same here. I have trans friends, and I don’t really care what they do. I was all for gay rights when they were fighting for actual legal equality… But in truth they’ve gone beyond that now. Now they demand special privileges, and want to push a lot of their alternative lifestyle onto people. Anybody who says anything that isn’t glowing praise is LITERALLY HITLER too. It’s gone too far.

    I think gay and trans people are mostly born that way due to a genetic anomaly, but that doesn’t mean that they should get carte blanche to try and talk up their odd lifestyle to little kids who don’t know anything about anything, and crush anybody who doesn’t see it as a great thing. ESPECIALLY not with my tax money. Remember, libertarianism DOES NOT have a personal moral code attached.

    So chill out people. The Advocates wasn’t saying or doing anything bad or unlibertarian. They were taking the proper libertarian position, which is stop government funding of something, and let private people do whatever they want to after that.

  10. As a member of a community that has historically been discriminated against and falsely maligned as deviant and potentially dangerous “to the children”, I may be somewhat sensitive to the perpetuation of such unjust stereotypes. I do agree completely with the premise, I simply find the use of sex offender fear mongering unnecessary and counterproductive; even if a few cases have been identified. Consider for a moment the sheer volume of “straight” pedophiles inhabiting the halls, pews and youth groups of America’s schools and churches. Would The Advocates use the same insinuations to advocate for the abolishment of the public school system?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *