THOMAS?

My very dear friend Jane sure had the dust kicked up around her with her post on dangerous libraries.

Now, you can take her post in a variety of ways: at face value, with a grain of salt, or somewhere in-between (or further out on the edges if you prefer), and you will see that pendulum of thought as you read through the comments. Comments ranged from "Look what the big, bad government is doing now," to the downright meanspirited (which, thankfully, was removed; there is no place for those types of comments).

But as I read through those comments, I was struck by one common theme, and that was this: people kept crying out for "source?" or digital scans of said document for their inspection or specifics about the library, librarian and author. Which, of course, got me to thinking about Thomas.

"Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put my finger into the nailmarks and put my hand into his side, I will not believe."

I am not suggesting that one should believe everything one reads (but if you are getting your newstories from personal blogs . . . you've got bigger issues at hand) or is told or sees on tv. There's a word for people who believe things at the drop of a hat . . . it's called "gullible."

What I am simply pointing out, though, is that Thomas really hasn't gone anywhere. His presence is still with us: "I won't believe anything until I see it for myself." Which can be good in some instances, but how does that attitude mesh with faith? At what point do we say, "I can't prove anything, I just have to live it."

Or, would we just rather run around looking for stories to shoot down and personal blogs to attack because of lack of what we deem as pertinent facts?

The other thing to consider is, ironically enough, the source. In the case of some of Jane's commenters, as with Thomas, they demanded to see the source of her post.

"This is all just some hoax dreamed up by a left-wing liberal . . . " or whatever.

"Source" is more than just the document she's talking about. "Source" is also Jane herself. If you've read her at length, you will know she is not prone to wild, fantastical stories. She writes about what she sees and offers her (sometimes blunt) opinion. I could see the Samaritan woman asking the disciples for proof of the resurrection (because she didn't know the disciples), and I can understand people who do not know Jane asking for proof of the letter. And since neither is likely to get what they want, maybe people should spend some time getting to know the person behind the original claim. You know, like spending some time in dialog and developing a relationship; rather than googling for the odd story of the day and spending time attacking it.

On a final note, I have known Jane for some time now. I can tell you for a fact that she has better things to do with her imagination than dream up tall tales of Montana librarians being notified they were "being watched."

I will also say without hesitation that I trust her implicitly.