In this interview from Fox News some guy comes on and suggests that libraries don’t have the legal right to have anti-religious art in their exhibits. Feel free to comment and criticize. Correct me if I am wrong but I do not think that the man manages to string together a coherent legal argument. It came across as white noise to me. Am I missing something? I think it would be absurd if anything religious or non-religious was prohibited from libraries. I do not have a problem with religious art being sold at libraries, government institution or not. Pictures of crosses, or art with other religious imagery, is in my opinion perfectly acceptable if it is being sold _as art_ in a library, and not being used to promote religion. The same is true of anti-religious art. It becomes a problem only when the state is putting religion (or irreligion) where it doesn’t belong, like in schools, on the money, or in the pledge of allegiance. In that case, it is simply a promotion of religion by the government. Here, we are not talking about the promotion or religion or irreligion. We are talking about art being sold at a library. It would be very strange indeed if libraries were prohibited from holding items that have any implications for religion (positive or negative). The reason libraries are allowed to carry religious books, like the bible, is because they are not being used to promote religion. They are being held as part of the libraries collection -this is an acceptable purpose for …