Censorship Is Also Interpretation Censorship: My Thoughts On Books And Scripture

I recently wrote about my county losing its library system, and how that would affect the literary freedom of poorer residents. Without a county library system, with all of its resources and the ability to borrow from other libraries across the country, those who can't buy books, can't read books. Or rather, can't choose the books they read.
But all of this got me to thinking about what books really are: They are other people's ideas. 

The freedom to read what you want--to have access to the things you want to read--is the freedom to take in and, if you like, be influenced by the information and ideas of other people. Restricting books is isolating people from each other.
Other people's printed thoughts have the power to change religions beliefs, political ideologies, ideas of how one should live their own life, and a thousand tiny everyday opinions as well. The freedom to read, interpret, and agree or disagree with, what one chooses, is religious, political, and personal freedom.
No wonder many religious and political institutions in power have tried to curtail that freedom. They know that there might be mass conversions away from their beliefs and systems if this freedom is allowed to go unchecked.

But actual censorship isn't the only way they do this. I disagree with the author of the book mentioned in the last post, The Woman Reader by Belinda Jack, when she says that "(Writer Doris) Lessing is right that no-one can tell us how to read."
 For example, how many people in America will tell you exactly how to read--or rather how to interpret--the Bible? For evangelists who make such a big deal out of their reading the bible "literally," they are eager to tell you exactly what each passage means, whether you ask or not.
When I read the bible, I see a Jesus who cared more about people than he did about rules. Who believed that God cared more about people than he did about rules. But apparently man was indeed made for the law, according to conservative Christians, and the law was not made for man. Provided, of course, that it isn't Jewish law (unless they wish to use the Old Covenant to conveniently condemn modern-day homosexuals or anyone else they don't care for). I don't think that it is impossible for one to be a "Pharisee," just because they are not first-century-non-Messianic-Jewish--but a lot of people would tell me I'm reading it the wrong way.
They would tell me how to read. Especially because I'm a woman--and a queer woman.

(I may do more formal reviews of The Woman Reader, if I have anything more to say about it. It is quite interesting so far.)

The right to read--and to read what one chooses, and how one chooses to interpret something--should be protected for all, including women, lower-income people, and children. (Because children have rights too, not just parents. And that includes freedom of religion and political opinions.)
I am very glad that I have always had access to books, and no restrictions on what I could read, at least in my teenage years. But some are not so lucky. And we need to protect their freedoms as much as we can.
There is no difference between deciding what children read, censoring what women read, restricting what the masses may read, and denying scripture to the masses. There is also no difference between those things, and telling people how to read scripture and other books. They all restrict religious freedom, which conservatives and others say they hold so dear.